Talk:The Beach Boys/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi Protecting The Beach Boys Page

Many unregistered users have been vandalizing this page with abusive language and rather annoying reverts. I think it's about time we semi-protect this page. Any thoughts? SgtPetsounds (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement

In American English, band names that are plural in form take a plural verb. Please refer to the following resources for verification and further explanation and examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Piriczki (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Formative years" and "Influence of Murry Wilson" sections

Does anybody else think that these two sections deal with the Wilsons' (especially Brian's) childhood in too much detail? Remember that this article is about The Beach Boys, not the individual members of the group (who have their own articles). If nobody objects, I will begin pruning these two sections into a more-concise 3-4 paragraph "Formation and early years" section, like that in The Beatles article.—indopug (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre

The Beach Boys are obviously a 'surf rock' band without question. But, arguably they can also be classified as 'sunshine pop' due to their earlier harmonious sound coupled with close vocal harmonies. Later on, 'psychedelic pop' was incorporated into their albums. --Complex Wisdom (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should try to keep the genre section general, just like on The Beatles page. Rock/Pop would cover every genre and would hopefully stop genre wars. --Hattiethecat1234 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Then all bands would have this general (and useless) category, and no one would be able to differentiate among bands the sound and true genre. Complex Wisdom (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the status quo—"Rock, pop, surf rock, psychedelic rock"—is fine, a happy compromise between both your viewpoints.—indopug (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre instructs "aim for generality" so adding more subgenres would be counterproductive. Even psychedelic rock could be dispensed with as many groups of that era had a passing psychedelic phase but it doesn't necessarily define them. Piriczki (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But I think "surf rock" should remain; it is The Beach Boys' defining genre.—indopug (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually they were much more into baroque pop than psychedelich rock, and if so, they were psychedelic pop, not rock. but really, baroque pop fits much better, they're much more like penny lane than strawberry Fields forever and I am the Walrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.157.213 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Like indopug, I'm fine with the status quo. Actually Baroque pop(Caroline No), Psychedelic rock(I Just Wasn't Made For These Times/Wind Chimes) and Psychedelic pop(Good Vibrations) all apply. The Beatles also had the same sort of pattern: Baroque pop(Eleanor Rigby), Psychedelic rock(Rain/I Am The Walrus), Psychedelic pop(Lovely Rita/Getting Better).SgtPetsounds (talk)14:31 26 Decemeber 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be most general than rock/pop would be best, but if you want to be more descriptive you have to consider all their genres. First was Surf Rock, then in the later 60s it was more Chamber Pop/Psychedelic Pop/Sunshine Pop. In the early 70s the band did more folk/country rock type stuff, and adopted that type of sound into their live show, but songs like Long Promised Road, Trader, Steamboat, and Feel Flows among other sound distinctly proggy to me in theme and style. Mid-70s Brian was really cutting edge, it's hard to describe but I'd pick Electronic Rock. Since the late-70s the band has been more of an easy listening/soft rock affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We're trying to strike a balance between general and specific, actually. Going too far down either approach isn't the best solution.—indopug (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a balance at all. You're being general by saying just Rock/Pop but then your singling out two more specific genres as having primacy over the others. It's a misrepresentation of the BB's legacy to favor the two genres you seem to want to over all the others. I think you either need to keep it at "Rock/Pop" or give credence to the other eras of their career, i.e. the 1970's when the band's influences ranged from The Band to Wendy Carlos. I don't see what the big deal of adding another line of text for the genres is, if it paints a more accurate picture of the band. The way it is now just perpetuates popular misconceptions about the band's music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I also don't know why you would edit out things from the associated act section. The Flames are certainly an associated act, two members were full fledged official Beach Boys, they were on Brother Records and their album was produced by Carl Wilson and engineered by Steve Desper. It doesn't get more associated than that. There really doesn't seem to be any reason to edit that out, it is in no way incorrect or misleading to say the two groups are closely associated, I can't for the life of me figure out what harm it does to list it. I mean, why put The Honeys but not The Flames??? Why put the Honeys but not American Spring!??? I think the other bands I included have equal right to be called an "associated act" as the Honeys, so I don't really understand why there's resistance to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard rock(Bluebirds over the mountain/All I want to do) makes more sense than Electronic rock. Can you imagine how big The Beatles info box would be if it listed every genre they attempted? SgtPetsounds(talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"your [sic] singling out two more specific genres as having primacy over the others"—yes, because the other genres mostly lasted for only an album or two, and are hardly as closely associated to the band as the surf and psychedelic rock. Also, the article's prose mention few, if any, of the genres you have added. And I notice, you haven't supplied any reliable sources to support your assertion that the band played "electronic rock".—indopug (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why not follow the example of that page and list only Rock/Pop? Why list Rock, Pop, AND surf and psychedelic??? There doesn't seem to be any reason for it, it just gives a bias towards the first 4 or 5 years of their career. It's not really a middle ground at all. There's a general tendency on wikipedia to combat over indulgence, and I can agree with that, there's not much reason in this case to list EVERY genre the band ever dabbled in, from Exotica to Disco and Bossa Nova. However there's no reason to fret over adding a single line of text if it allows for a more accurate, less biased depiction of the band. "surf rock/Psychdelic Rock" just doesn't work.

Beginning with Friends you can hear a definite country rock influence (in fact this influence is also present on Cabinessence and Heroes and Villains) on the various waltzes Brian was doing, you can hear it especially on C&TP, Holland, and In Concert where the band models themselves more on the big live performances of southern rock and country rock bands of that era. You could make a case for Blues Rock (think covers of Riot in Cell Block #4 or Slip On Through) or Hard Rock, or Folk Rock (those 20/20 songs you listed), but I think Country Rock is most appropriate, especially since it also captures a lot of Brian's '67 and '68 work, which Blues Rock or Hard Rock doesn't.

Beginning with the American Spring recordings you can hear a fondness for the Moog in Brian Wilson's productions, you can hear it on the song Funky Pretty, and on the albums 15 Big Ones, Love You especially. It's hard to say what genre that is, but shows the undeniable influence of Wendy Carlos' album Switched On Bach (he has mentioned it several times in interviews). I think "Electronic Rock" is a fair descriptor, they're a distinct part of the BB canon, they're albums that influenced Kraftwerk and other pioneering electronic groups, they're pretty unique, adventurous productions that shouldn't be lost in the shuffle in favor of the band's early surf rock years. I also don't know what "proof" you need to see that the band did electronic rock, the page for electronic rock defines it only as a "combination of electronic music with traditional rock music" and says that it started developing in the 1950s! Listen to 15 Big Ones or Love You, and you will hear EXTENSIVE use of synthesizers. Do I really have to find some article somewhere specifically describing the band as "electronic rock"? It's completely evident based on wiki's definition of "electronic Rock" and a quick survey of the recordings I've mentioned, The only information on Love You in this article is,

"For the remainder of 1976 to early 1977, Brian Wilson spent his time making sporadic public appearances and producing the band's next LP The Beach Boys Love You, a quirky collection of 14 songs mostly written by Brian alone, including more "fun" songs ("Honkin' Down the Highway"), a mature love song ("The Night Was So Young")—a mix ranging from infectious to touching to downright silly. Despite its flaws, Love You is one of the more popular offerings in The Beach Boys' later oeuvre. Many sources cited the album as a return to the group's roots."

It may not mention the character or production or the album, but that's because it's poorly written, not because the Beach Boys never did Electronic Rock.

And what about progressive rock? Frank Zappa has said Brian Wilson was one of the true pioneers of Progressive Rock. Going beyond that though look at Carl and Denny's productions from the early '70s. Trader, Long Promised Road, Feel Flows, Steamboat, all feature very forward looking production, very progressive synthesizer work, jazz flute work outs, etc. I don't know if progressive rock is truly the best label, but it's another very prominent aspect of their music.

Since the late '70s, MIU, LA, KTSA and beyond could be fairly described as adult contemporary or soft rock.

I think their career could be pretty accurately split up as "Surf Rock, Sunshine Pop, Country Rock, Electronic Rock, Soft Rock". As opposed to "Rock, Pop, Surf Rock, Psychedelic Rock" it has only one more genre!! I don't even think Psychedelic Rock describes the band, they didn't really sound anything like the San Fransisco groups I would generally call Psychedelic "Rock", "Chamber Pop", "Baroque Pop", or "Sunshine Pop" would all fit a little better probably. I picked Sunshine Pop because anyone clicking on that link will find information on Surf, Psychedelic pop, and Baroque Pop, so it seems like the best choice. Both Brian's work and Carl&Dennis' work of the early to mid '70s would fit under the 1970's section on the Electronic Rock page, so I suppose the progressive rock part isn't really needed.

Saying all that I don't know what the problem would be with being more fair and balanced when it came to depicting their career, I think this way is much more a balance between specific and general as it avoids the useless "Rock/Pop" tag.

Also The Moon should be under associated acts, it's David Marks late '60s band, come to think of it David and The Marksmen should probably be listed too.

Do you have any sources backing up your statements?Psychedelic rock/pop dose apply through the use of theremin, harpsichords, organs and psychedelic lyrics used in albums Pet Sounds and Smile. Baroque pop can also be significant as it was a major part of the Pet Sounds album through the use of experimental and unique instruments such as English horns. The only country rock song that comes to mind is cotton fields. Please Name me some soft rock and electronic rock beach boy songs?

Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock,ISBN 0634055488

The Rock Canon: Canonical Values In The Reception Of Rock Albums,ISBN 0754662446

Sonic cool: the Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll (Hal Leonard Corporation, 2003), p. 191.

SgtPetsounds(talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is in those books, is there a quote in them that specifically says "The Beach Boys NEVER did Country Rock", I mean, what is your point in listing them?

I have listed MANY examples, I encourage you to read what I wrote as I gave you several examples, I know it's long, but, really, don't ask for examples if you aren't going to read what I wrote. Here is a bunch of stuff I have alraedy said again, please read it and listen to the albums and songs I mention. You don't seem to have paid much attention to the albums Surf's Up, Carl and The Passions, Holland, 15 Big Ones, or Love You among others, this material was just as important to the band's legacy as the '60s stuff. Listen to the song "Big Sur" on Holland, there's no way you can listen to that and then still act like the band never did Country Rock. It's right there clear as crystal.

Electronic Rock: All the songs on The Love You LP and the 15 Big Ones LP. Moog synths are all over these albums! Listen to Just Once In My Life or Let's Go On This Way. Do a google search for "beach Boys" + "electonic" + "love you" and you will find plenty of websites like this, http://therisingstorm.net/the-beach-boys-love-you/ that prominently mention the synths on this album. The moog synthesizer is absolutely unmistakable if you actually listen to any of those albums. The electronic rock article also says that in the 70s Pink Floyd, Yes, ELO and others were electronic rock. Listen to the songs "Trader", "Steamboat", "Long Promised Road", "Feel Flows" for examples of this type of progressive/electronic influence(this is actually the third time I have listed these songs!!). The Moog synth is central on many of the bands songs on Surf's Up, C&TP, and Holland.

As for Country Rock, listen to the track Friends, the waltz time and the harmonica. Listen to the banjo on Cabinessence or the unmistakable country western sections of Heroes and Villains. 20/20 had things like cottonfields you're right. Listen to In Concert 1973 to hear the bands live show and compare that to Allman Brothers Band, Grateful Dead or other country rock/blues rock/or hard rock bands from the early 70s. The band's was heavily influenced by The Band especially during this period, listen to Hold On Dear Brother or Here She Comes. You could make arguments for Hard Rock, Country Rock, or Blues Rock, I think those genres are all closely linked, but the band did a ton of material in that vein between '68 and '73.

As for Psychedelic Rock vs Psychedelic Pop, I think both apply, but Psych Rock is more associated with the San Fransisco bands rather than the LA bands like BB or Byrds. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the use of the theremin (an example of electronic rock that you yourself brought up!!!) makes it more rock than pop, there doesn't seem like there's much reason behind that. In the end I think "Sunshine Pop" is the best choice, it better describes the material on Friends and Sunflower and if you actually go to the Sunshine Pop article there are subsections for Psych Pop, and Baroque Pop that both mention the BB. So I think Sunshine Pop is the best one to use obviously as it INCLUDES psychedelic pop and baroque pop. I don't know why you are hung up on psych rock vs psych pop as the beach boys are mentioned prominently in the articles for BOTH genres, and the point is moot as I ultimately think "Sunshine Pop" is a much better choice than either of those two.

As for Soft Rock. Please please listen to the albums LA (Light Album), MIU Album, Keepin' The Summer Alive, or any of the other albums the band has done since 1977. I mean, what would you call Kokomo? Soft Rock is a very fair description.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• These kind of discussions get counterproductive fast so I will strongly urge, per Indopug at the start, that we keep the status quo: "Rock, pop, surf rock, psychedelic rock", which covers the main types of music the band played/plays. Thanks. Jusdafax 06:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So is that how wikipedia works? When someone brings a new viewpoint to an article you just call the discussion counter productive and keep things as they were. I have given example after example of the genres I've added, what's the hang up??? There are two ways to settle this, change the genres to "Rock, Pop" or leave it the way I've edited it. The way it is is unacceptable as I've mentioned several times due to the fact that it gives primacy to the bands work between '62 and '67 over what they did in the '70s and '80s. The way I've edited it is way more fair and I've provided many examples showing that they are totally accurate descriptors. If you want to avoid more argument keep it general at "Rock, Pop" or accept all the arguments I made that nobody has really responded to as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No I said Theremin is a instrument used in psychedelic rock/pop not electronic rock. The Byrds are Psychedelic rock, ever heard of eight miles high? . Your source is not reliable and the facts you are stating are truly opinion and not backed up with reliable sources .FIND EFFICIENT BOOK AND WEB SOURCES INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU THINK!!!!!!. I would call Kokomo tropical music and pop.SgtPetsounds(talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't it be used in both? Why do you think that genres are so set in stone that only things that use the therimin are psychedelic and not anything else? Electronic Rock is defined by wikipedia as the combination of "Traditional Rock Music" with "Electronic Music" in addition Wiki defines "Electronic Music" as "Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production." now look at the official liner notes for the 15BO/LY twofer: http://www.albumlinernotes.com/15_Big_Ones_Love_You.html and you can see all the songs with synths on them. All the songs I've mentioned again and again and again fit very very very squarely into wikipedias own definition of electronic rock. Do I really need to find a book that specifically says that the beach boys were "electronic rock"? is that the only way to satisfy you? Tell me how the music I've mentioned four times now ISN'T electronic rock, how it DOESN'T fit the definition of "Electronic Rock" given by wikipedia! You haven't yet. It doesn't seem like you've actually listened to the albums and songs I'm specifically talking about, before arguing more please listen to them. I've given you the liner notes for those two albums, and they clearly show that the album fits wiki's defintion of electronic rock. Until you've shown that they don't fit, I think we should keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ALSO, why do you continually edit out The Moon from associated acts? what is your reasoning???????? Here: http://www.themoonalbums.com/ the Moon is another David Marks band, they did two albums, it's right there.

I have again and again and again given you examples, but it doesn't appear to me that you've ever listened to the albums I've mentioned. You certainly haven't yet told me how any of my examples were incorrect. If you want to compromise and settle this change it to "Rock, Pop" and drop the "surf rock, psychedelic rock" part, if you want to keep those parts please please please explain to me why "psychedelic rock" is better than "sunshine pop"! "sunshine pop" better describes the material on 1968's Friends and 1970's Sunflower. It also includes Psychedelic Pop (you still haven't explained why psychedelic rock is better than psychedelic pop, when Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations are listed on the pages for BOTH genres), Baroque Pop and Surf Rock, and the page itself for Sunshine Pop meantions the Beach Boys under ALL of those headings. Why don't you want to use this genre? please give a reason! You haven't yet given a single one besides "have you heard 8 Miles High?" (seriously dude?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do need to find a source stating that the beach boys have made electronic rock songs and going into depth about it because you have nothing that actually backs up what you are saying. And again I'm not saying therimin is only used in psychedelic music. For instance harpsichords appear in both baroque and psychedelic songs. If you find a reliable source that explains what you believe in depth ,me and others may take it into account. but for now please stick to the status quo and only change the infobox if the main users such as indopug come to an agreement. I will look into The moon for you. You claimed the Byrds not being Psychedelic so I answered "have you heard of eight miles high" plus I haven't stated that one genre is more important than the other. The reason why we agreed with the status quo was stop these types of arguments, so maybe rock/pop alone might be the answer to stop the bickering.

You do not have to "look into it" just look on this page: http://www.beachboys.com/davidmarks.html I mean honestly you are just being obstinate for the sake of it at this point. I also gave you an electronic rock source. here it is again: http://www.albumlinernotes.com/15_Big_Ones_Love_You.html those are the official liner notes for those two albums, right there in black and white. That to me is an "efficient" source, please please please please please tell me how it isn't if you disagree. The liner notes list the moog synth on several tracks, and if you actually took the time to read this source (which you of course didn't!!!!!) you'd see it's exactly what you want!!!! It talks extensively about the albums and about the use of synths on them!!!!!!!!!! Again, Electronic Rock is definied by wikipedia as a combination of "traditional rock music" and "electronic music", furthermore "electronic music" is defined by wikipedia as "Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production." According to the album's own OFFICIAL liner notes that I've linked you to, the beach boys are electronic rock, the two albums (among others) make extensive use or arp synths and moogs and you can read about it in the official liner notes! arp synths and moogs are "electronic musical instruments", it fits very very very very very very very very clearly into what wiki itself defines as electronic rock! I've given you the official liner notes with a bunch of mentions of synths and moogs and you haven't bothered to read it! before continuing to argue I implore you to actually read what I'm writing in this paragraph and actually respond to it and tell me where my logic isn't working for you!

Also, The Byrds are psychedelic rock, country rock and folk rock! Not just Psychedelic rock. the wiki page for the byrds lists the genres as "Rock, pop, folk rock, psychedelic rock, raga rock, country rock" so I don't know what your issue is. I have given an air tight argument as to why the beach boys are electronic rock, and have given a source to back it up and you haven't bothered to write a single word against it other than to say I haven't given a source (which I have!!!). It seems to me you haven't actually listened very much to the albums I'm mentioning over and over and over and over and over in these posts. Have you heard any of this stuff? Please answer me on this point. Do you not hear all the moog synths on the Love You LP? What point is exactly holding you up?????? I'm begging you to give me something here. You also haven't said anything as to whether the band is psychedelic rock or sunshine pop. Why do you INSIST on psych rock? You haven't commented on your opinion here at all. The Beach Boys are unarguably sunshine pop and the wiki article mentions the BB many times as perhaps the prime example of sunshine pop. sunshine pop seems like it covers more of the music the band recorded than Psych Rock. I agree with you the Beach Boys are psych rock, but I'm also telling you they are Baroque Pop and Psychedelic Pop, they can very easily be all these genres so I'm really genuinely confused as to why you must have them be listed as psych rock. I think sunshine pop is more specific than "Pop" and more general than "Psych Rock" it covers more of the material the BB recorded while including psych rock and psych pop. It just seems to fit better to me, please write a response to this point before changing it again. Honestly I don't think we can agree on this because you honestly just don't seem to know much about the beach boys and your opinions here appear pretty obstinate and arbitrary and you haven't said anything refuting me yet. I think the genre should be changed to "rock, pop" and leave it at that. it's the only way to compromise.

Saying I don't know much about the bb is a silly thing to say as I research through use of books and reliable web sources. Im starting to agree with you that the genre should be changed to rock/pop because we can't carry on arguing about because it will get to our heads. The good sides to rock/pop which user hattiethecat1234 stated it stops genre wars and we are a good example of genre wars. Im going to bed so peace out my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtPetsounds (talk • contribs) 08:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I mean, at this point is seems like the only option. I've written a lot, given a lot of examples, given arguments and sources. You still haven't given a single word, not one word as to why my logic concerning "electronic rock" was insufficient. I think I gave a very sound argument and showed the album fit the defintion of the genre, but you didn't bother to listen to the songs I listed or respond to the content of my argument. I really don't understand. I begged and begged and begged that you actually respond to my argument, but you didn't. I mean, what exaclty is the deal? It doesn't feel like you've read anything I've written, looked at the links I've posted, or considered my arguments. It feels silly that you are really arguing that the band wasn't Country Rock or electronic rock. I've listed songs, I've asked you to listen to them, you haven't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's the problem???????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

WP:3RR and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle then perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if need be.Moxy (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is really some bs if I say so myself. You guys won't let edits through, you tell me to go to the talk page. I've been here on the talk page, I've written pages of commentary on this, but nobody has taken any time to actually respond to any of my points. This article is rated C-class right now, I think it could be improved a lot by balancing it more between the contributions of the different band members. Right now there are two whole sections and like 10 paragraphs alone on Pet Sounds, GV and Smile, essentially a span of only a year. By comparison the albums Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, C&TP and Holland (a period of 8 years) get only 7 paragraphs. There's a clear bias in this article towards the Brian Wilson myth, the myth that he was the man responsible for everything good the band did and that everything after 1966 was an unworthy mess. The whole thing comes off like a poorly informed review of the band's later day material by an elitist critic. The section outrageously calls Friends a "largely acoustic album". C&TP is given two totally asinine sentences, "The album Carl and the Passions – "So Tough" was an uncharacteristic mix that included several songs drawn from Fataar and Chaplin's previous group, Flame, which are nearly unrecognizable as Beach Boys songs." The bands huge live resurgence during the early 70s is given only a single sentence. This article is not fair, balanced, or unbiased. It's a load of crap. The way the genre list is right now, it gives credence to the Brian Wilson myth, it favors the surf rock years and the 1966 recordings for Pet Sounds and SMiLE above all the other work the band did. I don't know who the curators of this article are, but I don't think you guys who have been fighting me have done a good job with this article, and you haven't given me any reason thus far to think you've ever listened to albums like 15 Big Ones, Love You, Friends, C&TP. Too fight the Brian Wilson myth, to bring more depth and truth to the beach boys story it's important to acknowledge all the post-Pet Sounds work as being equally vital. If you guys have other opinions as to what genres you think those albums are, I'd be happy to consider them, but I think it's important that all of the beach boys periods post-'66 are represented equally in the info box. The way it is now gives primacy to the brian wilson myth. I thought electronic rock was a very good descriptor of many of the band's 70s projects. It's very simple when you look at it, all electronic rock is is "rock music with synths", but you guys have been fighting me tooth and nail on this, so I'm asking for the one millionth time, why???? Do you disagree with the definition of electronic rock? do you disagree with the assertion that the BB used synths on those 70s albums? What exaclty is the point you want to contest? We either need to keep it totally neutral and general at "rock, pop" so that no period is favored, or we need to do it my way and have genres listed to represent every period. I think my way is pretty reasonable, but you guys seem to have some big hang up over this. Why exactly is Psych Rock so freaking preferable to Sunshine Pop? In my mind Sunshine Pop is much better. Psych Rock and Psych Pop both describe the Beach Boys, as do Baroque Pop, Chamber Pop, Sunshine Pop etc. Sgtpetsounds seems to think that genres are set in stone and can be determined concretely by whether or not a therimin or harpsichord was used, but I think we all know that's bs. The article for Sunshine pop links to the articles for both Baroque Pop and Psych Pop, Sunshine Pop seems like the perfect genre to list there, it's much more specific than just "pop", and it's more general than, and includes psych. It seems like it's the ideal genre to list but you guys seem to disagree. So I ask for the billionth time, why MUST the beach boys be listed as psych rock, what is the neurosis that you guys have about this that you are so unwilling to entertain this idea??? Again, either generalize to only "rock, pop" or include a few more genres to give a broader picture. I honestly think my way brings a little more depth to the article than the way it is now. I'll leave the page the way it is now for a while, but if nobody is going to take the time to respond to all the crap I've written, I will start editing again as it seems like it's the only way to push this topic forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Anyway, what if we remove psychedelic rock (which, as you and others on this thread have said, was performed by the band for a very short whilewtf is this??? the band was surf rock for an equally short period of time as pysch rock) and leave it at just "Rock, pop, surf rock"? Those are two overarching genres that covers their entire output, and a third that is most iconic of The Beach Boysthis article should not blindly favor popular misconceptions about the band's output. If you take the time to read my post I give several examples of this article being terrible due to its favoring of the brian wilson myth. Every period of the band should be equally represented in this article and in this info box. either put ONLY "pop, rock" or include more genres..—indopug (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC) This is ridiculous!!!! I can't believe you just said basically "i don't care what you wrote, it was too boring so I didn't read it". That's absolute bs and shouldn't be how wiki works. It's so insulting that you guys are up in your ivory tower but you actually think you don't even have to read my arguments, that they're just wrong because you are too lazy to read the posts. Go back and read my post or let my edit through. If you aren't going to read and respond to my arguments you have no basis to dismiss them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can live with that, Indo. As for 24.177.208148's lengthy comments, I will merely observe that they are right about the fact that the article has been 'C' class for too long. However, I would urge '24', with good intent, to tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. It appears you are new to the encyclopedia, so allow me to extend a welcome and advise you to sign your posts with four of these: ~ ...the culture here can be a bit difficult, but as I have observed elsewhere, there is a right way, a wrong way, and a Wikipedia way. Jusdafax 17:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above I agree with "Rock, pop, surf rock" as the intent of the infobox is to aim for generality. Most readers won't even know what some of these obscure subgenres are, so how these various musical styles pertain to the Beach Boys would be better explained in the body of the article. Unfortunatley, that would require someone to actually contribute a complete sentence, maybe even an entire paragraph, to the article. Piriczki (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it none of you have read a single word I've written. Why remove psych rock and leave surf rock? that's even WORSE! IT's WORSE!!!!! "rock, pop" covers all the genres the band did, it includes surf rock as well as psych rock! It's garbage that you guys want to tag on surf rock in addition to "rock, pop", doing that will exemplify surf rock above above all the other genres the band did. You act like because the average person coming to this article won't be familiar with the band's post-1966 output, that we shouldn't bother mentioning it at all. It's ridiculous and I'm actually astonished that after all i wrote your solution is "why not remove psych rock and leave surf rock", it's absolutely mind boggling that you think that's a good solution. The Beach Boys only did surf rock between '61 and '64, why do you think we should favor that period over all the others??? For the billionth time, we either need to put it at "rock, pop" and include no other genres on top of that, or we need to include a more comprehensive list of genres. Please please please please please please please please please please PLEASE read the last post I made. I can't tone down the rhetoric because you guys just don't seem to be reading what I write!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.—indopug (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So..........are you going to read what I wrote, are you going to respond to it or what? I mean, just read it for gods sake and write a response instead of acting like actually having a discussion is too much strain on you. If you don't have the time to read and consider arguments and write responses to them, you shouldn't be editing this page. If you are really that lazy you should just walk away honestly as you shouldn't be in charge of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Having the genre list be "Rock, Pop, Surf Rock" is garbage. By doing that you are saying that surf rock was the band's most noteworthy genre, and I'm saying that's not true. This article is c-class because it favors a certain side of the beach boys story, I'm saying that to be fair we should either keep it strictly general with ONLY "rock, pop" or we should do it my way. You disagree with that, you think we should hold up surf rock as the most important genre the band did, why? Please explain why you think you are right and why you think we shouldn't bother mentioning the other genres the band did. Please write a response to this and describe your position instead of just saying "sigh", if you can't be bothered to write more than "sigh", you SHOULD NOT BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to keep writing on this talk page, and editing the article until somebody actually does a proper response to me. You guys can either walk away or engage me in discussion, as long as you keep ignoring me and responding with bs posts like "sigh" I will keep going for however long it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Regarding your assertion that we must "fight the Brian Wilson myth", please read WP:GREATWRONGS. If most mainstream reliable sources (such as music magazines, major websites, books about pop music and The Beach Boys; blogs/fan-sites don't count) exalt Brian Wilson's pre-Smile contributions in comparison to the Boys' later work, so must we. In fact, when I re-wrote the lead for this article a month ago, I kept this in mind. The same logic applies to the genre field.

That being said, obviously the rest of the article is far from finished, and needs extensive rewriting (and referencing) to come on par with Featured Articles like The Beatles or The Kinks.—indopug (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OH! You mean like Rolling Stone magazine? Does that count? Here is the original review of the 1971 Surf's Up LP from RS: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/surfs-up-19711014

It ends with "this group has delivered plenty throughout its history. For that reason, they are perhaps still the most important and certainly the most "accomplished" of all American groups. You can come home, guys, all is forgiven." Or what about the original Rolling Stone review for the 1973 Holland LP: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/holland-19730301 which says things like Holland "is irresistible" and "is a special album". On the liner notes page I've linked to there are articles by REM, Tom Petty, and Elton John talking about albums like C&TP, Holland and Love You and exalting them. What about Robert Christgau's review of the 1967 Wild Honey LP, where he gives it an A+ and says "it does what it sets out to do almost without a bad second." These are the albums you think should be discounted from the band's legacy in favor of the surf years, but I've given you sources showing otherwise. You're simply unfamiliar with the BB legacy, I can find dozens of reviews and essays on the albums you've dismissed that show them great favor. Many serious reviewers and musicians have heaped accolades on this material, and in reality it did far better than misinformed articles like this one tend to portray. Wikipedia should be interested in being unbiased, and you are clearly biased towards Brian Wilson. If none of the info I've just posted is enough to convince you that the material in discussion is worth more consideration, then I don't know what will. You say if most mainstream sources exalt Brian Wilson's work above the BB later day work, so must we. While I provided sources showing that's not true, the popular conception of the BB legacy is a twisted mess with little basis in fact and we shouldn't blindly echo the misinformed sentiments of the average joe who knows next to nothing about the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I never meant to imply The Beach Boys' post-1966 albums didn't receive their share of acclaim, or influence a number of musicians.—indopug (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Then what's the hold up? Our argument is over what genres should be listed in the info box. You think that the only specific genre that should be listed is "surf rock", you seem to think this because among "reliable sources" that is the genre that is the important part of the band's legacy. I said that's not true and gave reliable sources, and you agreed that the band's post-pet sounds material "received their share of acclaim, and influenced a number of musicians." So where does our argument stand, do you still think surf rock is the only genre worth giving specific mention?????? You seem to agree that's not the case so I don't know how you can stick to that argument. So I ask once again, why are you against the inclusion of additional genres in the info box? It really seems to me that Sunshine Pop would be a perfect inclusion, if you go to that page you'll find sections for Psychedelic Pop, Baroque Pop, and Surf Rock. It seems to me that if we listed the genre as Sunshine Pop it would be the best way as that genre includes surf rock and psych pop, it's more general than either of those two genres and anyone clicking on the link to that article will find more information about the beach boys in relation to subgenres like surf rock and baroque pop. In addition I think other genres should be added to represent the band's early 1970's efforts in blues rock and country rock, Brian's electronic productions on Holland, 15BO, and LY, and the most recent 7 LPs of soft rock and adult contemporary music the band did. Listing the genres as "Sunshine Pop, County Rock (or Blues Rock maybe), Electronic Rock, Soft Rock" would be exactly the same number of genres as we currently have and give a much more accurate picture of the band's career. Again, you have yet to explain why you think "Surf Rock" should be mentioned in addition to "rock, pop", while the band's other genres don't deserve listing. I've given you many examples, sources, articles, reviews as to why equal treatment of the bands career 1966-1996 is desirable and you haven't really put up any fight, and if you aren't going to then you should walk away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said, my stance is the status quo. Although, the band incorporated a number of different styles into their music, none of those define the band the way surf rock does. To quote Rolling Stone, "The years 1963-1965 established the Beach Boys' legacy", which the band have flogged since 1975's Endless Summer to become "reduced to America's premier nostalgia act".

Further, going by the number of editors who have said "I am happy with the status quo" on this thread, I'd say we have a WP:CONSENSUS for "Rock, pop, surf rock, psychedelic rock". This is all I have to say on the matter. (Oh, and you might want to read the essay WP:GENREWARRIOR, I strongly recommend it).—indopug (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Indopug. Now look here, '24', your hostile manner is doing your cause a disservice. Telling people they "should walk away" isn't constructive, and you are fast wearing out your welcome. I left a message for you on your talk page, trying to give you a clue about how we tend to operate, but you either have not read it or have ignored it. Just so you know, if you keep it up at this level, you get warnings and then blocks. The article needs good contributors, no doubt, but you have to stop shooting yourself in the foot, OK? Jusdafax 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do we not do it like The Beatles page and list just "Rock, Pop"???? I strongly disagree with the contention that "surf rock" "DEFINES" the Beach Boys, it certainly does not. Also I have to ask why does the info box have to be so limited, what harm does it do to include other genres that the band did? Why are you guys so insistent that only the genre that "defines" the band be listed? Other genres could easily be included on top of that without doing any harm. I'm strongly in favor of doing it like The Beatles page and having only "rock, pop". The Rolling Stone Magazine artist bio for the beach boys is not the end all be all source of information about the band. Check out this article http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/the-1967-1971-beach-boys-long-promised-road.htm that mentions other genres like electronica. Obviously genre is really subjective but wouldn't "Rock, Pop, Sunshine Pop" be even better than "Rock, Pop, Surf Rock, Psychedelic Rock"???? Why not do that? Or why not keep it at just "rock, pop". there doesn't seem to be a good reason to favor specifically surf rock, there's enough room in the info box to include a sample of all the genres the band did. I mean honestly, to me it isn't about what genre the band had it's most success with, it's about what genres the band actually did. There's a section for genres, so why not include a balanced list of the genres the band did? Why do we limit ourselves to only what genres are listed in the rolling stone magazine website bio for the band? Again, Sunshine Pop includes surf rock, Psychedelic Pop, and Baroque Pop, it seems like above all that would be the best genre to use to describe the band's '60s music. What is the argument against this? What is the argument against throwing this whole argument out and leaving it at ONLY "Rock, Pop" either would be a step in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also will you guys stop posting little messages for me telling me what to do please. I've written several wiki articles in the past and taken them up from nothing. I really have no interest in joining the "wikipedia community" and putting little badges on my talk page and what not. I mean, there's a wiki rules page for "TL;DR", and somebody here actually linked to it. Really? When somebody writes too long a response according to wiki rules you can just ignore its content if you're too lazy to read it? If any of you had taken the same amount of time you have writing me pedantic rules reminders to actually comment on this discussion maybe we could actually make some progress!!! Again I demand that either all periods of the band are equally represented in the info box, or that the genre list be reduced to only "rock, pop". There is no reason the info box should favor only what is more popular or most well known, there's no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• '24'... "Demand"s that you get your way won't get you far here. Out of curiosity, since you state firmly as a point in your favor that you have "written several wiki articles in the past", I'd be interested in knowing which ones, what name you edited under then, and why you changed to an IP number who refuses to sign posts. As for the "little messages", in my view talk page posts are an important part of growth as a Wikipedian. I'll be happy to stop my efforts, based on your unhelpful attitude. Jusdafax 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in being indoctrinated into wikipedias cultures, or "growing as a wikipedian". I have used several user names over the years. Honestly dude, you seem way more interested in talking about bs wiki culture than actually discussing the topic at hand. Almost nothing has been written thus far against any of my points. None of my points have been addressed, none of my suggestions discussed. I have begged and pleaded that you guys actually read this stuff and respond but instead it seems like you're more interested in getting hung up on the fact that I won't sign my posts (why would I when it does it automatically for me?) The consensus on the beatles page is that all things like psychedelic are considered to be "styles" under the genres of "rock" and "pop" and they decided to leave it at that. I'm calling for the same thing to be done here. I'm asking you to tell me why we SHOULD NOT use "Sunshine Pop" in the genre list over Surf Rock and Psychedelic Rock. I have pointed out many times that Sunshine Pop includes Surf Rock, Baroque Pop, and Psychedelic Pop, in my opinion if we're striving for brevity listing sunshine pop gives us the most bang for our buck. Nobody has yet responded to that point. THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME I'VE BROUGHT THIS UP BUT NOT ONE OF YOU HAS WRITTEN A SINGLE WORD WHY THE CURRENT WAY IS PREFERABLE NOT A SINGLE WORD. Discussion isn't moving along because you guys are not having a discussion. If we were to list Sunshine Pop instead of Surf Rock and Psych Rock we would make the genre list more concise without diminishing the importance of the surf rock genre to the bb legacy. before you write anything else, you could at least consider this one point and then tell me why you think it's negative. Please. No bs about wiki culture, no snarky bs posts of just "sigh". Consider what I've written time and time again, and tell me why you think I'm wrong.

Arbitrary break

WHY IS: "ROCK, POP, SURF ROCK, PSYCHEDELIC ROCK" BETTER THAN "ROCK, POP, SUNSHINE POP" ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Why do you prefer it your way when sunshine pop includes BOTH surf rock and psychedelic pop IN ADDITION TO BAROQUE POP. It's very clear that the beach boys did all of those genres, they did Sunshine Pop, Surf Rock, Psych Pop, and Baroque Pop. So why not list the genre as sunshine pop if all four genres fall under that heading and are discussed on the sunshine pop wiki article? WHY ARE YOU AGAINST THIS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why surf rock etc are mentioned on the sunshine pop page is because they sometimes share the same elements, however they are different sub genres of rock and pop and are not sub genres of sunshine pop. I think we should really follow the likes of The Beatles and The Kinks and just have "Rock,pop" because all the sub genres the Beach Boys have covered will be under two main genres "rock,pop". "Rock,pop" sounds allot better than both "Rock,pop,sunshine pop" and "Rock,pop,surf rock, psychedelic rock".(talk) 01:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agreed. It's completely redundant to list other genres over "rock, Pop". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should now come to an agreement that "Rock,pop" is the best solution because we can't keep arguing over sub genres. I too personally agree we should aim to be like the Featured Articles like The Beatles and The Kinks, its the only way we will ever progress.—Hattiethecat1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

• While I agree that we can't keep arguing about it, I strongly disagree that we remove "surf rock" as a genre, which has been a stable part of the description in this Wikipedia article for many years. The Beach Boys were known for being a surf rock band in '62-'66, by far their peak sales years. Even when they stopped making albums with references to the sport, that's how they were known. Taking surf rock out "dumbs down" the infobox description. The "psychedelic rock" tag is in regards to their greatest hit, Good Vibrations. You want to take that out, I'm "meh" about it. But count me in with those who want to keep "surf rock" as a description of the mucic band called the Beach Boys... which was formed in 1961 when Dennis Wilson suggested that they write a song about the sport, and the result was their first single Surfin' , followed by three best selling albums with the word "Surf" in the title. It appears that there are a few here who don't like it and don't want it in the infobox, but without "surf rock", there would be no Beach Boys, and that is well-documented music history. Jusdafax 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in most cases only the main genre should be listed, however there are many cases were a group is associated with the founding and/or the spread of mass popularity of a sub genre. In this case its widely confirmed that the "Boys" although did not invent the sound per say are accredited with making "surf rock" a main stream genre. So if there is a a vote per say i would say that "surf rock" should stay - As for "psychedelic rock" i would say they only incorporated some of this sounds but as a whole its not there sound. Sunshine pop and surf rock as pretty much the same - Sunshine pop is a new term that was not around when the "Boys" were at there peak (its a revival term). Moxy (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm totally fine with "Surf rock and Psychedelic rock". But I kind of agree with the statement "Rock and Pop is the best solution" due to arguments and what not. Wrestledope (Wrestledope) 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The genre box is not supposed to be a list of only what genres the band did that were most popular, it should aim to give an understanding of all the main genres the band worked in regardless of how popular they were. There's a lot of characterization going on by the people who want surf rock to be privileged. Today!, Summer Days!, and Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations are NOT surf rock and these albums are arguably more well known and important than the surf rock albums. Songs like I Know There's an Answer and I Just Wasn't Made For These Times are psych, California Girls was written on acid. Saying that the band is most well known for Surf Rock is totally wrong when the Rolling Stone #2 album of all time, and the bands most famous song aren't even surf rock!!!!! And their style of production was a huge influence on the "popularization" of the burgeoning psych music scene. The Beach Boys are not "defined" by Surf Rock at all, The Beach Boys would not be The Beach Boys if not for all the different styles they recorded, I know you think surf rock is the best or most important thing they did but as far as their identity as a band goes it's not the most important and should not be privileged. I'm generally confused as to why you guys are resistant to the band's other genres being equally represented. But my vote certainly is to either keep it at only Rock, Pop OR represent the other genres. Again the genre list is not there to say what genre they did that is arguably the best or coolest or whatever, it should be a neutral list that gives equal share to all the band's genres regardless of how cool you may or may not perceive them to be personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Rock,pop" would be better than representing all the sub genres because the info box could become clustered. Rvd4life (Rvd4life) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The way I was suggesting it before "Surf Rock, Sunshine Pop, Blues Rock, Electronic Rock, Soft Rock" would pretty fairly represent all the different eras of the band's career with only 5 genres. But some of the people ealier in the discussion had a huge unexplained issue with this for some reason. So to avoid argument, leaving it at just "Rock, Pop" would probably be best. It's really strange considering that all wiki defines electronic rock as is rock music with synths, but there was still a lot of resistance to this for some reason despite the influential, pioneering use of the moog synth on several of the band's 70s albums. I could never really get anyone to respond to what the harm was in acknowledging the band's post-1964 work in the genre box was, seems pretty irrational to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For a group that did so much, it's quite hard to decide which genres are the most significant. For the genres you stated, they are probably quite controversial with other users so you were right to avoid them. But other than that "Rock,pop" is defiantly the best way forward and I really do agree with you about the "Rock,pop" stuff.Rvd4life (Rvd4life) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does it take to reach consensus? Most of the people posting in this talk page are now supporting the position that the genre should only be rock, pop. and indopug hasn't contributed any reason why that should not be the case. We should be following the example of the beatles and kinks pages, it works there and it will work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems some editors are arguing in favour of just "rock, pop" solely because "it will avoid arguments". That's not really the right way to go about this, because there's only one editor who's creating such a hoopla about this (I suggest you all read the short essay WP:GENREWARRIOR), to the extent that he accuses the article of propogating a conspiracy theory called the "Brian Wilson myth" by listing surf and psychedelic rock as Beach Boys genres. Further, remember that another editor could just as likely come along in a few days and start trolling for the genres to be changed again.

Another thing about surf rock: remember that since 1975 or so, the Beach Boys' have achieved considerable fame/notoriety as an oldies' act, performing mostly their early, popular surf music. So restricting the band's surf period to just 1963-66 is also not really accurate. Surf music is what they play to this day.—indopug (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you don't care what the other editors are agreeing upon because you don't think they're doing it for the right reasons? It seems to me you're just trying to maintain your stranglehold on this page. Please provide sources saying that band's albums 15BO, LY, MIU, LA, KTSA, S/T, etc are "surf rock" albums. Also "oldies" is NOT the same thing as surf rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, quit yelling.—indopug (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not yelling, it's called bold. You have to be speaking to yell so I don't really know what you're talking about dude. How about actually backing up your positions for once. If you've read any of my posts, you know the issue is, I do not care what genre is they were most successful at, or did for the longest or whatever, that's NOT the point of the genre list to tell people that, it should be a neutral list of all the genres the band did and nothing more. With the case of the beach boys it's totally subjective what genres they did and which ones they had the most success with. They DID NOT have the most critical success with surf rock, maybe the most popular success but is that your only qualification? I don't think it should be. We can argue back and forth about which genres are most important for the band, but that's totally subjective and we'll never reach consensus. So why continue with this? why not just leave the genre rock, pop? What's the harm in that?

I agree that the genre should be rock, pop only i don't know what it takes for consensus i tried to edit it to our way, but the guy edited it back and said "don't pretend there's a consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.40.31 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I had reverted 24.177.208.148 with the edit summary "don't pretend there's a consensus", so why are you saying that that "i tried to edit it to our way, but the guy edited it back"?—indopug (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

   sorry I meant "he" tl;dr  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.40.31 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 

There seems to be some frantic desire to manufacture consensus to delete "surf rock" at the expense of deliberation, that's what I'm getting. The argument that it must be deleted doesn't hold water, in my view. And I agree that something is fishy as well. Could be time for other eyes on this. Jusdafax 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been no deliberation, you and indopug have posted very little in the way of actually discussion. You have asked me for examples and sources, I have provided them. Instead of reading them or responding to them you seem to have a frantic desire to keep surf rock in spite of the consensus that is growing on this talk page. My point again and again is that the info box should not privilege any genre regardless of how popular or succesful it was in any area. Do you disagree with this? listing surf rock separately is redundant and serves no purpose other than to say "this is the most important genre the band did" which is very subjective. most important in what field? commercially? critically? You can, and I have provided many good arguments disputing this. The band's critical masterpiece isn't surf rock, it's most well known single isn't surf rock, it's really unnessecary to list surf rock on top of rock/pop. It seems counterproductive to resist this change without contriubting the discussion. At this point your blocking the change out of spite without saying anything as to why we're wrong. If you won't answer to all these points stop blocking the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indopug speaks for me as well... the edit to the talk page here by a second IP who does not sign posts is troubling. Especially when it is their first edit. This needs to get sorted out. Jusdafax 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point you're just deflecting the issue. The people for the change outnumber those for. The consensus seems to have changed so now you are doing everything you can to prevent the change. Who are we going to turn to resolve this? By what criteria will they decide. I am frankly skeptical that they will be impartial. The template for genres says "aim for generality", listing only "rock, pop" is more general than the way it currently is. So by the only criteria I can find removing "surf rock" is the way to go. Please answer to all the points I've raised in this discussion. You have not added anything to this discussion besides a preoccupation with superfluous issues of wiki culture. Can you contribute to the discussion please???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Any time table on when you guys are going to actually you know, respond to the many points in favor of changing the genres. Also while I'm at it is anyone going to put up a big irrational stink if I remove the part that says Friends was a "largely acoustic album". I actually don't think there is a SINGLE track on that album without amplified instruments. Many parts of this article seem to have been written by someone that hadn't listened to the material they were writing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been no movement here for a few days now. I again ask those against change to defend themselves.

We have defended ourselves; we have merely used fewer words than you, hence our arguments are likely lost among your incessant rants. I have changed the genres to "rock, pop, surf rock" as an attempt to strike a compromise between the the general and the specific. Remember that surf rock is by far the most iconic of The Beach Boys (I mean, duh, they are the Beach Boys); an infobox that has just "rock, pop" would "dumb down" the article (to quote another user above), and the removes the element asserts their uniqueness compared to The Beatles or The Kinks.

In summary, The Beach Boys played a number of genres throughout the career, all of which are subgenres of rock and pop. However, for the most iconic, popular, well-remembered part of their career their music (and image) was all surf rock.—indopug (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BS, there's no consensus for you to remove psych rock, having only surf rock is far worse than having both. You also haven't defended yourself. Why again does the info box have to include the most popular genre they did? I mean, yes, they undisputedly preformed surf rock, but they just as undisputedly played other genres as well. My point has continually been, why does the genre list have to tell us what genre the band did that was most popular???? It's a list of genres not a list of most popular genres. Also why is popular success the only measure? They were certainly more critically revered for music they did that was not surf rock, even GV their most successful single was not surf rock. I really don't understand your position. You're argument seems to be "well they're the beach boys, so that means they did surf rock", the beach boys, as an entity, are equally defined by all their musical periods and experiments, not just what one was the most popular. There's no reason to so insistently demand that only surf rock be represented. And you haven't answered at all as to why that's the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) rock & pop should never be used in wikipedia articles, they are way too general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Beach Boys member

(Automatic translation) beach boys Hello! I wanted to mention one thing: they should get Brian and Al from the list of current members, although obviously not in the band, but I read somewhere that they are legally in the group. After reading that I realized in this wiki because they were in there, but why now removed? I Gelpgim22 of the Spanish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.63.10.6 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jardine and B. Wilson are not in the current members list because, as you say, they are "obviously not in the band". They may still have a legal stake in the band, but that is irrelevant as far as mentioning them as current members goes.—indopug (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I am standing here, I wanted to clarify a question: if you seek the gold & platinum disc on the website of the RIAA, there is The Beach Boys in Concert with gold record, but says the disc is from 1965, obviously have Beach Boys Concert mistaken, of similar title, but which of the two albums is gold discs? ¡¡¡Saludos desde Argentina!!! --186.63.10.10 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian Wilson and Al Jardine are not current members of the Beach Boys band. They may still be members of the Beach Boys business company, but this article is about the Beach Boys musical group, not about technical side of the Beach Boys' business arrangements. To have Wilson and Jardine listed as current members is inaccurate.Jamespnugent (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed Al Jardine was moved back to the "current members" list. Is there any new evidence that Jardine is once again part of the group? The Wikipedia page for Al Jardine states: "Jardine left the touring version of the Beach Boys in 1998 after Carl Wilson died of lung cancer, but remains a member of the Beach Boys corporation Brother Records." From what I understand, Mike Love kicked him out of the band. Jamespnugent (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed under "Past Members" in the top info box, Glen Campbell is listed along with other former/deceased members. However, he is not listed with other former members in the Beach Boys template at the bottom of the page. I might suggest that some consistency would be good here. Also, with the band's 50th Anniversary Tour having come to an end and Mike/Bruce restarting their own Beach Boys tour, it may be worth discussing whether or not Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and David Marks should still be listed as current members. My understanding is that they are still legal members of the band, though they are not currently touring with the band. 74.215.119.125 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to refer to Glen as an official Beach Boy at the same level as the core quintet plus David, Bruce, Blondie and Ricky. Glen temporarily joined the touring band to ensure the band could continue playing live in light of Brian's hasty withdrawal in 1964 and was gone after only a few months. Had he contributed vocally to albums, appeared in publicity shots, album covers etc. he'd probably be seen as once being a legitimate member of the band. As it stands, he's really no more a Beach Boys than Ed Carter or Billy Hinsche and I think he should probably be removed from the infobox. Also, as I understand it, Al, David and Brian are still legal members of the Beach Boys and Brian has stated that he is currently writing to record with the Beach Boys again in the near future. For that reason, I'd say that they are very much still part of the band and they should retain their positions in "current members". To do otherwise would be akin to saying Brian was not a Beach Boy in 1966 when the band was touring and he was writing Pet Sounds. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Very valid points. I fully agree that if Glen Campbell was just a touring member and session musician, not an official member, then it is not accurate to list him as a former member, despite his short-lived prominence in the group. A question I have though (which I truly do not know the answer to) is how we should indicate the current membership status then? Very true that Al, Brian, and David are still legal members and that there has been talk from Brian of another album, but as we all know, they are not currently touring with the group known as "The Beach Boys." I could be wrong, but I don't think this is in the same sense that Brian still worked in the studio for the band while Blondie/Ricky toured. Nonetheless, they are still legitimate members of the band (as you said). I know there is already a page called "The Beach Boys lineups," which details members and touring members over time, so I guess what I'm asking is how do we account for the differences in membership in the infobox (or do we even need to at all)? I saw a day or two ago, it was edited to two sections - the 50th Anniversary lineup and the current touring lineup, but that's gone now, so I guess the more experienced editors decided that wasn't the best way to deal with this. Cheers! Mgrimm789 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the box to include Brian & Alan as "current members", because they are. In all the reissues of recent vintage, as approved by BRI, they're included. True, they're not touring as "The Beach Boys" currently, but then, the band that tours as "The Beach Boys" uses that name for touring only, as voted by the members of BRI back in 1999. They were not fired, as reported in the media last fall - the 50th Anniversary was never intended to be a permanent arrangement. Nonetheless, Brian & Alan are members of The Beach Boys, according to Brother Records Inc. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Beach Boys Billboard

Hello again, I'm Gelpgim22 wanted to ask because the information has been removed that (according to Billboard) The Beach Boys is the group most sold singles and albums in the U.S.. Here you can see the issue [11]. Greetings! --186.63.10.82 (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No one responded at the time, but the issue has come up again. I assume it was removed because there was no citation to support the claim. Frankly I think the statement may well be true, but it needs someone to come up with a reliable source and so far I haven't been able to find one. It also matters when the claim was made, since other bands could have change this.--SabreBD (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to that I managed to find a version of the article with a source for the claim, which was removed by Indopug in this edit. There was no edit summary, but checking out the reference I can see why it was removed as the source was not Billboard at all but someone's calculation based on Billboard statistics and this really doesn't look reliable to me. The statement was clearly erroneous (Billboard did not claim it) and is dubious, so, just for the record, I suggest we leave it out, there are after all lots of much better substantiated claims to fame for this band to go in the lead.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Dragon & Toni Tennille

If you read the wiki for both, each state having a part in the Beach Boys in the early 70's. Why does this wiki not have any reference to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.7.9 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

References review

Could we have a review of the references (not the Notes section). I can see that Wilson's text is cited in the notes and I see this addition where that author added Endless Summer Quarterly. Are the other two used?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits and the stats posted about the number of top 40 hits matches to said reference. As per history tidbits in the book, there appears to be no link to this page Gsgeek540 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Seis Beach Boys.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seis Beach Boys.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Seis Beach Boys.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Should The Smile Sessions be part of the Beach Boys album discography?

Alan Jardine called it a "Beach Boys version of Smile", so I am tempted to think they consider it a regular Beach Boys album. I'm not a Beach Boys expert so I really don't know how many other albums would have to be included if we applied the same criteria for the Smile Sessions to another Beach Boys albums consisting of old studio material. I want to avoid adding every odds-and-ends compilation to the list, but the Smile Sessions seems more like a regular album, just released late. Any thoughts? Masebrock (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Piriczki (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Technical sophistication of "God Only Knows"

"far more technically sophisticated than anything the Beach Boys, or arguably any group, had ever attempted before." This is a total fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.187.15 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted new-version of the lead.

Hi, I reverted the lead to the stable version I wrote over a year ago. The stable version of the lead was better than the current one for the following reasons:

1. Hagiography: "Noted as America's greatest rock group and an important catalyst in the shaping of popular music, the Beach Boys are one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful bands of all time" is a highly contentious claim, and the sentence reeks WP:PEACOCK. Best avoid to making such claims entirely or to quote somebody on it, as the old version did. Even "Brian was pushed back into the role of the Beach Boys' producer in what most report was an exploitative move given Brian's unstable and unprepared mindset" is very controversial language.
2. Length and lop-sided coverage: the lead is meant to be a summary, but the new version goes into too many details. But yet it manages to miss out many important things: how their peak was in 1965/66 when they briefly challenged the Beatles, the very-important "Good Vibrations" singles. While their most acclaimed work Pet Sounds is mentioned in passing in a sentence that is primarily about Smile, the lesser-known Love You. Remember although one may think Loves You (or whatever other album) was wrongly overlooked in its time, Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs.
3. Recentism: why are two entire sentences devoted to their latest record when none of the others get even one (except, of course, Love You)?

That said, there are a few more things that need to be incorporated: Endless Summer and how its success enabled the band to tour as an oldies' act; how their early music was "Influenced by barbershop music and rhythm and blues". There also needs to be a word about the new album.

However to name a number of their albums but not talk about them at all (like had been done with All Summer Long, Today!, Sunflower, Surf's Up and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!)) is not useful to the reader. It is also against the point of the lead, which is to provide a succinct summary of the band's entire story.—indopug (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the new version is no improvement and I support the revert. Jusdafax 06:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• As the primary contributor of the new lead, I also support the revert. In retrospect, I agree that it does look a lot neater in this condensed state, however, language like "However, Wilson would soon lose control of the band because of mental-health and substance-abuse issues." and "the group never managed to reclaim its mid-'60s peak when The Beach Boys briefly challenged The Beatles both in terms of commercial and critical appeal." reads a little problematic in my eyes. The former doesn't state the democratic shift of the band and the stepping up to the plate of the other Beach Boys, which should be a vital note. It's not as if the band drifted aimlessly following Brian's retreat. Secondly, the band put out multiple international no. 1 singles and well received albums, sometimes with no Brian involvement, it was primarily in the United States where they weren't very strong performers, which I think is a substantial point to note. Also, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "The Beatles" being used as a benchmark, it just doesn't sit well with me.

Apart from that, I understand why we can't cover everything in the lead, so I think I'll devote some time to improving the body of the article. Cheers, Jamekae (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

band members - timeline

This is one of the best band of all time, and there is no band members or timeline when who was in the band. Its a shame. see the article of fleetwood mac and and and. Hope there will be a timeline soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole page dedicated to this! Please See The Beach Boys lineups Gsgeek540 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Crocodile Rock

In 1991 the Beach Boys covered Elton Johns' "Crocodile Rock" on the Two Rooms album. Benfredrick (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Musical style and development

In an effort to bring the musicianship of this band to light (along with facts pertaining to why this band is more than a 1960s footnote in surf rock who recorded Pet Sounds as a fluke—something I've been devoting probably way too much time to for a while now) I've extracted provisional quotations from Domenic Priore's 2005 book on Smile that I hope can eventually be added to the article a la The Beatles#Musical style and development and Pink Floyd#Musicianship. I hope to find more if I can ever get access to the whole of Philip Lambert's 2007 book that analyzes Wilson's music.

This is everything I found notable in Priore's book up until around page 65 when the focus comes squarely on Smile. Page numbers can be found through here.

I still think there is a wealth of related information that could and should be forked from Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile article's 'composition,' 'recording,' and 'critical reception' sections. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the book.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed template. There's still some stuff in the Priore pastebins I didn't bother using, most of it only columns of praise.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Authoring of the song sail on sailor

In reference to the authoring of the song sail on sailor, - The hypertext link to Ray Kennedy points to the incorrect Ray Kennedy. The Correct Wikipedia page is for Raymond Louis Kennedy who is the song co-author that the citation is referring to. Someone (Wikipedia) ? fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.24.29 (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the link to point to Raymond Louis Kennedy. Thanks for drawing this to our attention. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Beach Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100327211659/http://thebeachboys.com:80/home.aspx to http://www.thebeachboys.com/home.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Singular or Plural

I support using the singular since it is a single band. We wouldn't say "Frosted flakes are a brand of cereal" we would say "Frosted flakes is a brand of cereal" bands like The Black Eyed Peas use the singular. It is not the plural are I think it makes more sense and is more accurate. inviting User:Bruce1ee to provide feedback if they would like. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement states that in British English collective nouns normally use plural verb forms, while in American English they use singular verb forms, except when the collective noun is plural, in which case a plural verb is used. The Beach Boys is a plural collective noun, so "are" is used, not "is". —Bruce1ee^talk 06:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Using that logic we would say "Frosted Flakes are a brand of cereal" Which we wouldn't do. Why would we use your argument only when it selectively suits you? lots of bands (Guns n Roses, The Wallflowers, etc) use Is not are. This article is about the band. the band is named the beach boys. The Beach boys is the band this article is about. The beach boys are the band this article is about? to me Is not only sounds more readable it's more accurate. Since there is only one band named the beach boys the band is singular. Just like the united states is singular because while it has 50 states it's a single entity. the Beach boys had multiple members but is still only a single band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"The Beach Boys were a great band" - yes. "The Beach Boys was great" - umm.... no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing referring to something as a hole and referring to something as a combination of individuals. Pop-tarts is yummy to eat = makes no sense, reffering to individual pop-tarts as each being delicious to eat. compared to Pop-tarts is a brand. which refers to the "brand" as a single entity. The Beach Boys (the boys who made up the band) =/= "The Beach Boys" the band itself. Just like the "Utah Jazz" Franchise =/= The players on the "Utah Jazz" team. It's subtle but makes sense. League of Legends is a fun game, not League of Legends are a fun game. why? because the game is a single entity. You can't go off of "what sounds right" you have to go off the conventions of grammar.

Some people miss the point about this. When a band's name includes a plural noun for a group of people, such as "The Beach Boys", "Eagles", "Carpenters", then it is usually more grammatically correct or common sense to use "are" instead of "is" and "were" instead of "was" and so on. It is just grammatical silly to say "The Beach Boys is a band" instead of "The Beach Boys are a band. The verb in this case refers to a plural entity (the band members) and not the singular entity (a band). Afterwriting (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree if we were referring to the individual members of the band I would say are. Those beach boys are so cool. but the boys are in a band that is titled "the beach boys" which this article is about. so when we say "The Beach boys is a band" that's 100% correct. No style guide written treats the title of a singular entity in the plural. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wilson, Jardine and Marks still in 'current members'

2016

Isn't it time to remove them? They haven't been in the band for a good few years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.246.64 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

They are still considered current members.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing Members

In the wake of Glen Campbell's death, there seems to be some dispute about adding Glen Campbell to the Past Members section. While Campbell only toured with the Beach Boys briefly in the 60s, he was a contributing member of the band. Someone has put a tag in the main page saying "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE CURRENT OR PAST MEMBERS WITHOUT CONSENSUS" without explaining from whom we should seek consensus, or why. If a person participated as a part of the band, shouldn't that person should get credited as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisJohnson (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There have been many, many musicians touring with the Beach Boys, right up to the present day. No one seems to argue in favour of listing them all as members. Why should Glen Campbell be an exception?--Sixsevenfive (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The two things in favor of Glen Campbell getting listed as a member are: 1. The fact that he replaced Brian Wilson for the few months that he toured with the Beach Boys. 2. His notoriety. Arguably his fame outshone many, if not most, of the touring musicians who played with the band.CurtisJohnson (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

John Stamos technically "replaces" Dennis on drums sometimes, and everybody knows who Stamos is. That does not make him an official Beach Boy. There is nobody who considers Campbell a full-fledged member of the group, and to list him among the Wilson brothers, Love, Jardine, Chaplin, and Fataar — all of whom actually contributed to the band with original material, in addition to performing consistently with the band in the studio and on the road — is hugely misleading and infringes on WP:BALASPS. Campbell's association with the band is a tiny footnote. If we include Campbell, we have to include Stamos, and if we include Stamos, we have to include people like Captain & Tennille, since they played/sang both on the records and on tour...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The last page of the Made in California book (which is the most recent in-depth Beach Boys 'box set') lists The Beach Boys as Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, Al, Bruce, David, Blondie and Ricky (with parenthetical durations after Bruce, David, Blondie and Ricky). Other studio and live participants played their parts (and there are plenty of other individuals who made much more substantial contributions than Glen), but this is the authoritative list of members of The Beach Boys.Sixsevenfive (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting points. Would it be fair, then, to add a section of touring/temporary "members?" As an avid fan of all music, I enjoy knowing who played with a band, member or not, and how long those musicians participated. For example, Billy Preston contributed to the Beatles even though he never officially joined that band, yet most would acknowledge his contributions. And, Jimmie Nicol played with the Beatles ever so briefly in Australia, and is given credit as a touring member. Would a "Touring Musician" section be a reasonable compromise? CurtisJohnson (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Such a thing is located at The Beach Boys (touring band)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

2017

He claims he didn't, that he fired us after the reunion ... He’s a brilliant songwriter, and unfortunately he has brilliant lawyers. We wish him all the best, but doggonit, you know, we’d like to be Beach Boys, too. There you go." - Al Jardine pretty much saying they are no longer members of The Beach Boys

I think they need to be removed as current members as Love and Johnston have been the only two touring and recording as The Beach Boys and Wilson and Jardine have been quoted as saying they are not members, Wilson even stating he doesn't want to make music again with Love. The link you posted doesn't have Wilson, Jardine or Marks listed as current members. The only section listing them as members is the About section which also lists Carl Wilson and Dennis Wilson as members and they have been dead for many years. Wilson, Jardine and Marks haven't been members since the 50th anniversary tour. They are not even allowed to use the Beach Boys name as Love holds the rights. Jardine was even threatened with a lawsuit when he attempted to use the band name to promote one of his tours. Wilson, Jardine and Marks all made statements on how they were fired from the band by Mike Love, which he denied firing them but they would no longer be part of the Beach Boys and as Love said of the reunion and carrying on under The Beach Boys name " It was a great experience, it had a term to it, and now everyone's going on with their ways of doing things."

"He claims he didn't, that he fired us after the reunion ... He’s a brilliant songwriter, and unfortunately he has brilliant lawyers. We wish him all the best, but doggonit, you know, we’d like to be Beach Boys, too. There you go." - Al Jardine in 2014

"In April 2015, when asked if he was interested in making music with Love again, Wilson replied: "I don’t think so, no," later adding in July that he "doesn't talk to the Beach Boys [or] Mike Love."

Jason1978 (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jason1978: Mike Love's Beach Boys band is distinguished from the official group. Whoever constitutes a band called "the Beach Boys" on stage has never had any bearing on who the actual members are. The same goes for studio recordings. The only way we can objectively classify who is a "current" member and who isn't is through legal technicalities, which means Brian, Love, and Jardine are members. However, it's unclear how Bruce Johnston and David Marks figure in the organization. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

All 5 from the 2012 tour and album are still original members. Mike Love's company does not own the name; he has a license to it. It's a very complex story. Like User:Ilovetopaint says, the touring group became different from the official group in the late 60's. It's just so insane. EPBeatles (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

2018

David Marks should still be listed as a member of the group. Just because he is not a corporate member doesn't mean he's not still a member of the band. Bruce Johnston hasn't been a corporate member since around 1972 and he's still listed as a current member. I know the touring band is different from the actual band, but if we're going to say that Bruce's live performances with Mike make him an official member, David Marks appeared live with the group from 1997-1999, briefly in 2008, and occasionally ever since 2012. EPBeatles (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's long-overdue for this article to regard the Beach Boys in the past tense. The problem with considering David Marks a current member is that there is no difference between his role in the group now and what it was from 1963-1997 and 1998-2011. This is way too confusing. He is an ex-Beach Boy. Actually, they're all ex-Beach Boys, seeing as the group hasn't functioned as a "band" since 1998, but rather as a "brand name". We can point to XTC for a similar example (the group did not break up, its two members simply said they would not collaborate again). The only argument against recognizing an official break-up is the existence of Mike Love's touring band. That can be mended with a footnote, like so:

The Beach Boys were an American rock band formed in Hawthorne, California, in 1961.

References

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, but maybe we should put the years active as 1961-1999 and 2011-2013 because there was still speculation after both initial break-ups that they would reunite again.

--EPBeatles (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Three makes for consensus, so I'm going to ahead and make those changes. Zabboo talk 18:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Zabboo, can we at least make the timeline/members section like it had been before? Not recognizing the group as still being active, but maybe making a "final lineup" section like other bands have? Definitely the timeline: which I feel that other than the group not being active from 1998-2011 and 2012-present was fine?

-User:EPBeatles talk

I don't agree with the most recent changes and believe they only add to the confusion. Mentioning the touring band under "years active" might be good enough for a distinction.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• (responding to this rationale) "it makes it seem like Wilson and Jardine are current active members. They very clearly are not." Says who? Wilson, Jardine, Love, and Johnston all participated in the promotion of the Royal Philharmonic album and they were not presented as "ex-Beach Boys" or anything of the sort. Fans want to believe the band ended in 1998 -- me too -- but it's just not the reality. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Most iconic?

Right now the wiki says "The Beach Boys are regarded as the most iconic American band." I think it should be changed to say they are regarded as one of the most iconic bands. I mean, it's not like there is a single most iconic band, and saying they are the most iconic makes it seem like a fact not an opinion.

Those are my thoughts, what do you guys think? El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The "fact" is that two writers have given their opinion that they are "the most iconic American band", but I removed that phrase from the lead because it doesn't really belong there (or at least doesn't need to be). (1) It's not found in the main body, (2) it's just copied from the article Cultural impact of the Beach Boys and a link to that article is found under the sub-section "Cultural impact and influence", and (3) the lead section is plenty long enough without it. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! It wasn't a huge deal, just didn't sound totally right to me. El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Use Wilson autobiography as a source?

Since I Am Brian Wilson: A Memoir has been released and it was written by Wilson himself, should we consider using this as a reliable source to help expand the article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It could, but there's nothing new in the book. It's basically a mish-mash of Wiki articles rewritten for Wilson's voice.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Beach Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831092742/http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-beach-boys/bio/ to http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-beach-boys/bio/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204153729/http://www.techgnosis.com/index_beach.html to http://www.techgnosis.com/index_beach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Beach Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714191639/http://www.teachrock.org/resources/article/villains-and-heroes-in-defense-of-the-beach-boys/ to http://www.teachrock.org/resources/article/villains-and-heroes-in-defense-of-the-beach-boys/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725054715/http://gothamist.com/2011/10/27/brian_wilson.php to http://gothamist.com/2011/10/27/brian_wilson.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125223127/http://teachrock.org/media/essays/surf_himes_with_maia_edits_2.pdf to http://teachrock.org/media/essays/surf_himes_with_maia_edits_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217145328/http://www.vocalgroup.org/inductees/beach_boys.htm to http://www.vocalgroup.org/inductees/beach_boys.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Beach Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208055808/http://www.beachboysband.net/TOURSCH/BB_TOUR_SCH.htm to http://www.beachboysband.net/TOURSCH/BB_TOUR_SCH.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316075924/http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2013/03/08/brian-wilson-al-jardine-david-marks-beach-boys-mike-love/ to http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2013/03/08/brian-wilson-al-jardine-david-marks-beach-boys-mike-love/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724203723/http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Brian+Wilson+here+with+best+band+ever+worked+with/11234184/story.html to http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Brian+Wilson+here+with+best+band+ever+worked+with/11234184/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beach Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109022405/http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/B/Beach_Boys/2011/12/16/19133156.html to http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/B/Beach_Boys/2011/12/16/19133156.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent tours

Should their recent tours be added to the "2010s: Radio and brief reunion tour" section? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Not unless there is anything particularly notable about them. Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The Beach Boys vs The Wrecking Crew

I have been trying to untangle the Gordian Knot of just who played what on the early BB's records and am wondering if anyone here has a copy of Murphy's "Becoming The Beach Boys 1961-1963" book, which I am hoping will shed some light. Any other book is fine too. My library system does not have it and it is a bit pricey for me these days. Mostly this is for the WC article but I figure that I have a better chance here. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Carptrash: As far as I can recall the Wrecking Crew played on very few of the records before The Beach Boys Today. I'm almost certain that there was only a couple of tracks from 1963 where just a couple of session musicians were featured at all.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: Blaine in his auto lists Be True to Your School, In My Room, Surfer Girl, Deuce Coup, Surfin' USA, Fun, Fun, Fun, and I Get Around, all, I think, from before then. I think. Tedesco in his bio includes Fun, Fun, Fun and I Get Around. Some of this is included in the wikipedia song articles some is not. Hartman, in his bok on the WC includes some, but not all of these. I just want a nice simple trustworthy author to lay it all out. Carptrash (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

disputable image

Is there any truly particular significance that the fair use image (Touring Beach Boys 1972.jpg) is needed? The FUR doesn't even appear complete. If there isn't any valid reason why it should be kept, then I think that the photo should be deleted. 100cellsman (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beach Boys (8794913159).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Beach Boys 1994.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey @MatthewHoobin:, thanks for opening a discussion~ I briefly read your edit in the MOS~ I'm just thinking off the top of my memories ~ but a few of the bands you used as examples are named with "the" in their names ~ example The Beatles are "The Beatles" and not "Beatles" ~ maybe I'm off base of what you are asking ~ I think I see what your are saying about being the primary topic~ I think if the band is per say"The Beach Boys" thats the name of their band ~ it would be like be taking away the name of 'burger' from burger king and saying lets got to king and get a burger ~ ~ if you said "beach Boys" instead of 'the Beach boys' same effect ~ in California when my daughters talk about beach boys ~ they are talking about the boys on the beach ~ get my drift ~ I think The the name should stay if it is truly part of their name ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: Thank you for reading! I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say in the discussion. There is currently no guideline or rule that I can find in regards to how the titles of articles about songs or albums with the band's name in parentheses should be written. For a clear example of this, look here: the article for the Beatles' album Revolver is currently titled "Revolver (Beatles album)", while the article for the Rolling Stones' album Aftermath is titled "Aftermath (The Rolling Stones album)". The former doesn't include the "The" in the band's name, while the latter does. I think there should be a policy about how cases such as these should be handled, for consistency's sake. I don't think your analogy about Burger King works, because the brand name is "Burger King", not "The Burger King". Furthermore, while some people may use the term "beach boys" to literally refer to boys on beaches, the band is still the primary topic for that term, and there's no article on Wikipedia about literal boys on beaches. –Matthew - (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: you did not get my drift about burger king and beach boys ~ ~ your changing band names to the slang version if you take a word from their official name ~~ ~ I'll look into what you are asking ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wilson's membership

Isn't Brian Wilson no longer a current member of the band? SecretName101 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Surf songs

I made a change to the third sentence recently which modified the third sentence "Distinguished by their vocal harmonies and early surf songs", replacing 'surf songs' with 'innovative musical arrangements'. User:JJMC89 bot III reverted this edit with the comment 'Feel Flows not yet announced'.

My feeling is very much that the lasting legacy of the group is not their contribution to surf music, but rather the way that they added complex orchestral arrangements into pop music.

I think this change should stand, but interested to discuss the matter.

ollee (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ILIL reverted, not my bot. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update ILIL, I think that's an improvmenet ollee (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

End of intro para

This sentence is very long and unwieldy. I think it's really trying to do too much:

"The band drew on the music of jazz-based vocal groups, 1950s rock and roll, and black R&B to create their unique sound, and with Brian as composer, arranger, producer, and de facto leader, they often incorporated classical or jazz elements and unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways."

The early part does not mention classical as an influence, then it gets jammed in at the end.

Is it important to note that Brian is composer/arranger, etc. at this point?

Was Brian not the "composer, arranger, producer, and de facto leader" prior to this shift occurring circa '66 with Pet Sounds?

ollee (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Ollee: The sentence is structured that way because the band didn't really incorporate the same level of classical/jazz influences nor studio innovation when Brian stopped leading the band. It's also important to note that Brian handled all those tasks because it was an extraordinary achievement at the time and because he's commonly regarded as the band's auteur during their early period. ili (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @ILIL: Makes sense! That's not clear from that sentence, though ollee (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Too bad the lead doesn't conform to WP policies like WP:LEAD and WP:V. If it did, that sentence would be summarizing something said in the body of the article. And there would be source citations. But without knowing what the source is for that sentence, it's going to be difficult to fix it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Membership?

Hello everyone. I feel like the membership section should be revised. Brian should be omitted from the current members section in certain dates. For example, he contributed nothing to Summer in Paradise (1992), and stopped touring with them again in 1990. He virtually was off in his solo career, until he briefly returned for the recording of Stars and Stripes (1996) from 1995-1996. Furthermore, after 1996, he didn't tour with the band or note any activity with them at all until 2012, which was billed as a REUNION tour with Brian, Al, and David Marks. Brian's listed membership should be 1961-1990, 1995-1996, 2012. Next up is Al Jardine. After Carl's death, he left in 1999 and didn't do anything with the band until 2012, so his membership should be 1961-1962, 1963-1999, 2012, 2021. Let's get a true consensus on this.

Helloworlditsyaboy (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Jardine and Marks reunited with the band in February to sing "Add Some Music to Your Day" to benefit Feeding America. Edited proposal, as well as main article (for Marks).

This has been hashed out many times and is difficult because of how it is with the BB's, so we might as well do it again. Yes, Brian's contributions were limited or nothing during those times, but that is not common during certain times. Brian is also almost absent from Holland (other than Funky Pretty and the bonus EP) and the completed version of LA. He never actually quit the band. Regarding Al, the touring band and corporate level had been separate from this time, and Mike forced Al out of the touring band, now being run by Mike's company MELECO. Work on TWGMTR I believe started in 2011 regarding a rejoining date for David Marks, and I've been of the opinion that the SOS "reunion" in 2006 should be counted as well. Though this contradicts my own prior statements regarding not having Mike's band be the end-all be-all, I feel that David Marks' gigs with M&B in 2014 and 2015 (plus the Sirius "reunion") should probably be counted if we're not going to call him "current" as well. I don't think the re-recording of "ASMTYD" should count because Brian isn't on it and it isn't credited to The Beach Boys, unlike "Don't Fight the Sea", etc. However, I think it would be a good idea to mention that Mike, Al, Bruce, and David joined up to re-record the song in the article, as long as we specify not as The Beach Boys. And even though 2012 was billed as a reunion, the same can be said of other bands: ex. Kiss in 1995 (guest appearance by Ace Frehley and Peter Criss), then all work 1996-2004-ish and then when Ace and Bruce Kulick sat in on a one-off guest appearance in 2018), Guns and Roses when Slash and Duff McKagan rejoined in 2015/2016, John Sebastian sitting in with The Lovin' Spoonful once last year for a special concert, etc. EPBeatles (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Al and Brian, on both of their sites, don't mention bring current members of the BBs. I think that at this point, we should treat Mike's touring band as the Beach Boys definitely. There's nearly no chance of new material. And about Brian's absence from those other projects, at least they were shorter intervals when the band was more consistently making albums. 1990-1995 were dead zone years for the recording Beach Boys and 1996-2011 and 2013-now, too. While Brian has never formally announced his departure from the Beach Boys, it was evident then and now that he wants nothing to do with Love or Johnston's iteration of the BBs. I feel that Al could still be considered a member (due to his recent guest appearances, enthusiasm about the 60th anniversary and reunion for Feeding America) and I also agree about including the Marks/Jardine reunions in 2006/2014/2015. Helloworlditsyaboy (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest Wilson and Jardine tag thinner lines. Joey Camelaroche (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems reasonable! I'll edit the timeline, unless anyone has objections or other suggestions Helloworlditsyaboy (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• "While Brian has never formally announced his departure from the Beach Boys, it was evident then and now that he wants nothing to do with Love or Johnston's iteration of the BBs." – This is inaccurate, it depends entirely on what day he's asked. The truth of the matter is that it's a futile effort trying to make sense out of member departures/joinings since the '80s unless you look at it from the perspective that membership in the Beach Boys is equal to whomever is still involved with BRI. Of course, Johnston is the exception, so that rule still has its inconsistencies. But it's the best we've got. Brian and Al might not be performing with Mike, but they still all have stakes in the greater organization of "the Beach Boys". Therefore, it's plainly wrong to state that they've been disassociated from the band at any point in their history (except Al in 1962). ili (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Mike's statement from 2012:

This approach is not new for our band. Brian first stopped touring with the Beach Boys in 1964. Over the years, he’d sporadically join us on the road when he could. [...] The name “The Beach Boys” is controlled by Brother Records Inc., which was founded by the original members of the Beach Boys and whose sole shareholders voted over a decade ago to grant me an exclusive license to tour as “The Beach Boys".

There's nothing unusual for bands to have touring line-ups that are different from the "official" line-ups. Off the top of my head, I can think of Animal Collective as another band with long spans of studio inactivity, inconsistent touring/recording line-ups, and an unchanging "official" line-up. ili (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• One more, Brian asked if he was "still a Beach Boy" in 1998:

Yeah, but not as much as I used to be. Still a Beach Boy, yeah, but I don't tour with the Beach Boys. [...] I am a member of the Beach Boys, but I don't travel with the Beach Boys.

ili (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's valid. I think we should keep them as members then, but I've noted that they aren't touring, and made their bars thinner on the timeline. Don't want any confusion, and at first glance, the older revisions made it seem like the 4 were touring together. Helloworlditsyaboy (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  "Don't want any confusion" – So your solution is to introduce an even more complicated set of arbitrary criteria? Have you seen the touring musicians' timeline? If you look at Brian's bar, he still has numerous gaps that aren't consistent with the thin lines on this page's timeline. The suggestion you're making is that there's somehow a difference between Brian Wilson not touring with the Beach Boys in 1971 versus 2021. What is the difference?

  Wouldn't it be better to just add a note that echoes what's already stated in the very top of the article: "Brian and Jardine do not perform with Love's edition of the Beach Boys, but remain official members of the band"? What is so confusing about a band in which only some of the members perform live together? ili (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead section composition

Binksternet: well, UK sales today only are 17% of US sales (UK is 66 million; Canada is 37 million), so basically you appear to be arguing that only US success should be mentioned in the lead. That is simply not fair. English Wikipedia is not simply a US website. Canada, the UK and Australia are cuturally quite different than the US; many artists do much better or worse in Canada than in the US (Supertramp sold greater than a million of Crime of the Century here; the Cult is another). Germany and France and Italy are signficant markets - sales about the same as the UK (about double Canada's) and are also relevant. By the same token, if an artist "conquers" both Canada and US that is an achievement - if they then expand to UK, parts of Europe and Australia, that is usally an additional step that only some bands achieve and should be noted - The Eagles only did the latter a minor or moderate amount; same with Journey and Heart. I feel your American-centric view is improper. I very much hope you do not expand your action like this to other articles. I do not understand why you feel a desire to revert useful, but not too excessive info other people feel is valid. I also cut out excessive detail to make space for it - some articles, like Aerosmith lead, had stuff about rollercoasters and repetitive wording.Informed analysis (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, I moved this from my talk page because the subject matter is of interest to everybody. You're referring to this reversion of your editing work, in which I commented, "Canada's certs are one-tenth of US, so not as important by a level of magnitude. We already say they had a string of top-ten singles, so we don't need to name them all."

Basically, my position is that the lead section is for generalities, while the article body is for specifics.

Perhaps one thing we can do is to say that Surfin' U.S.A. (song) was a worldwide or global hit rather than a national hit, since the song performed very well in Japan, Australia, Austria, Sweden, UK, Canada, etc.

Certainly Canada is important, but not more so than a bunch of other countries. UK Gold is more than Canada Gold, for instance. And there's no denying that reaching Gold in the US is a big deal. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note about top right photo. Jardine and Love's names are swapped. That's Love on the far right.

I believe you're mistaken. I believe that is Jardine on the far right. Mark Froelich (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing “psychedelia” to “psychedelic pop”?

More fitting. Xxzcx (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

FA class?

Brigantics, with edits such as this, are you awarding articles FA status? I can't see there's been any attempt to take this one to FAC – eg there is no page for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beach Boys – let alone a successful FAC and promotion. Or maybe I'm missing something? JG66 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Whoever nominates it should take it to either ILIL since they're the article's major contributor or a peer review or both in that manner.웃OO 02:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not know that I had to do all that before giving the article FA status. It just looked like a FA to me, at least comparing it to other similar articles. Brigantics (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding Wrecking Crew misconception

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RFC withdrawn at the request of the initiator. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Should it be noted in the List of common misconceptions that the Beach Boys were not replaced by studio musicians for most of their albums and singles in the 1960s? (Further discussion here) ili (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The common misconception fulfills all four prerequisites for inclusion: the item is reliably sourced, current, and is mentioned in The Beach Boys (where there is an entire section devoted to the topic) and The Wrecking Crew (music). A detailed summary of this misconception is offered in Jon Stebbins' book. The misconception is also discussed on Pitchfork and Slate.

The only counterargument presented is the fact that contemporary American Federation of Musicians contracts (which ostensibly provide a list of players employed on select studio recording dates) are often inaccurate. But stronger and more definitive documentation does exist in the form of the surviving audio tapes of these recording sessions, which demonstrate that members of the Wrecking Crew were not present for most Beach Boys instrumental tracking sessions. These tapes exist for virtually every track the Beach Boys recorded from 1962–68 and excerpts have been made readily available on bootlegs, compilations, and expanded reissues. Example ili (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd be happy to add this to the Common Misconceptions page, assuming the editors on this page accept it as part of the Beach Boys article. Joe (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  @JoePhin: I made this RfC in response to repeated objections from a single editor, Mr swordfish. If you restored the entry, that'd be much appreciated, and if no other editors object to the entry, then I would consider this RfC withdrawn. Cheers. ili (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the parent article was modified only yesterday to add this material. It is unclear whether that material will stand. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• No. We have several sources that conflict with one another. It's one thing to note the controversy, it's quite another to label one side or the other as a misconception when the material itself is in dispute.

The musicians' union contracts are most certainly not the only counteragrumment (although they do strongly support the notion that session musicians were used quite extensively, the problem being that the band members themselves were not paid under union contract so they don't show up in those records even when they were there).

There is an entire chapter devoted to the Beach Boys use of session musicians in the book "The Wrecking Crew". Consider the following excerpts:

By early 1965, Brian Wilson, like many of his fellow rock-and-roll producers, had been primarily using Pohlman on electric bass in the studio for several years. But that all changed once Wilson learned that Kaye was now available for gigs as a bass player, too. She had already played guitar for him on many of the Beach Boys’ records, and he liked having her as a part of his creative team. pg 195

...he (Hal Blaine) and Brian were close; in some ways, Blaine was like a second father to the sensitive young recording star, sometimes offering advice, always willing to listen. pg 196

By the mid-Sixties, the Wrecking Crew had become an indispensable part of one Beach Boys hit after another on songs like “California Girls,” “Little Deuce Coupe,” and “Fun, Fun, Fun.” And because these sessions were always painstaking affairs in terms of Brian Wilson’s creative yet agonizing producing style, the musicians—union members all—tended to rack up some hefty hourly wages along the way. pg 198

..while the real Beach Boys continued to travel America and the rest of the world on what seemed to be a never-ending tour, Brian and the Wrecking Crew stayed home and made studio magic. pg 208

...almost five years of Brian Wilson and the Wrecking Crew together in the studio night and day as a virtual musical family in creation of an almost unprecedented string of twenty-two Top 40 hits...pg 212

Our job as wikipedia editors is to present a synopsis of what the reliable sources say. "The Wrecking Crew" book by Thomas Hartman, published by Thomas Dunne Books is a serious reliable source published by a major publisher that won several awards. It should not to be simply discounted and ignored. Perhaps it is wrong or misleading, but without some better sourcing to determine which version to present, our only choice as editors is to present the controversy in a neutral manner. Since it's not the purpose of the List of Common Misconceptions article to "present the controversy" I don't see how this material is appropriate on that page. In other words, this is a gray area that we should simply avoid on the List of Common Misconceptions article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: Everything in those Wrecking Crew excerpts, apart from one or two details, is factual.

Yes, the Wrecking Crew augmented some Beach Boys records in the early 1960s, but only for auxiliary instruments such as saxophones, strings, and additional percussion (tambourine, timbales, and so forth). The band members usually provided their own bass, guitar, and drums, not unlike the Beatles.

Yes, the Wrecking Crew were used extensively by Wilson in the mid-1960s. Specifically, between late 1965 and mid-1967 (i.e. Pet Sounds and Smile sessions).

Both of those claims are supported by the other sources. What isn't supported, however, is that Wilson "had been primarily using Pohlman on electric bass in the studio for several years". That's exaggerating. Wilson did not start regularly employing members of the Wrecking Crew until the 1963 Surfer Girl album, and it would not be until early 1965 that he began producing tracks for the Beach Boys that heavily featured studio musicians

[E]verything that came after [December 1964] was a change, definitely, because after that I started to use the studio differently. I tried to take the things I learned from Phil Spector and use more instruments whenever I could. I doubled up on basses and tripled up on keyboards. That made everything sound bigger and deeper.

I Am Brian Wilson (2016)

It is very difficult to obtain reliable and authoritative sources that prove this statistically (I'm not sure if any exist – you just have to trust the word of authors and journalists who are familiar with the facts compiled by the band's own archivists [which have been published online through various avenues]) so the best I can do is direct you to the articles for each Beach Boys single released over 1961-69. [ read this instead ]

Look at the personnel sections for the 1964 singles Fun, Fun, Fun, I Get Around, When I Grow Up, Dance, Dance, Dance, and Man with All the Toys. Notice a trend? The fundamental set-up (bass, guitars, drums) is credited to the Beach Boys on all records. Then, after 1965, we see that the Wrecking Crew takes on a bigger role on with Do You Wanna Dance, California Girls, Help Me, Rhonda, and The Little Girl I Once Knew, but not on Barbara Ann.

All three '66 singles heavily featured the Wrecking Crew (Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, Good Vibrations), but by 1967, the band had reverted to playing their own instruments on every single (Darlin', Gettin' Hungry, Wild Honey). This remained the case for every subsequent '60s single except Friends. ili (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This RFC is predicated on the assumption that the edits of the last few days are acceptable changes to the Beach Boys article. That has not been adequately addressed on the talk page, and until it's settled here this RFC is premature. I'm going to revert the recent changes pending further discussion.

Note that this RFC discussion shows up on the talk pages of the Beach Boys (the parent article) and List of Common Misconceptions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Here is the text of the entry in question:

  • The Wrecking Crew did not play on most Beach Boys albums and singles in the 1960s. The vast majority of those recordings featured the Beach Boys themselves playing their own instruments, with the only notable exceptions being Pet Sounds (1966) and Smile (recorded 1966–67).

This does not seem to be supported by the reliable sources cited. For instance, the Slate article has this to say:

However, fans and critics have perpetuated the idea over the years that the band stopped playing their own instruments in the recording studio. While this was largely true for Pet Sounds and Smile, most of the band played instruments on every preceding album.

I'm not seeing where it says the Wrecking Crew did not play on them as well. Brian Wilson adopted the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" approach where every instrument was doubled or tripled, usually necessitating a dozen or more musicians in the studio. So, with the band being composed of only half of that number, it's obvious that session musicians (i.e. The Wrecking Crew) were used extensively.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• No. This YouTube video cannot be considered a reliable source. The Stebbins book is a good source for the Beach Boys side of the dispute, but the Slate piece by Grant Wong admits that plenty of session musicians were involved, as does the Pitchfork piece with no named author. We must tell the reader that the literature doesn't prove the issue one way or another—that there are contradictory opinions and contradictory proofs. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Binksternet: WP:FALSEBALANCE: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. [...] We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

  We're not disputing that the Wrecking Crew were involved. We're disputing that they played on most Beach Boys records released in the 1960s. This has been thoroughly debunked by the band's reseachers since around the late 2000s (The Wrecking Crew was published in 2012). The myth persists because of the outdated sources and because some people never bother to verify the claim with basic arithmetic. ili (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Binksternet. I agree that the proper approach is to address the controversy, rather than treating it as settled. However, the article in its current state does the latter. I'm not going to edit war, but leaving the current version in place seems to violate the NPOV standards. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

ILIL, is that the royal "We"? 'Cause it looks like you alone are making this an issue.

The mistake you are making is in calling this issue a "common misconception". It is nothing of the sort. The public began to learn about the Wrecking Crew's contribution in very small morsels over the decades, but the largest change to the standard assumption arrived in 2008 when the Wrecking Crew documentary came out. Prior to 2008, the "common misconception" was that the Beach Boys played their own instruments. The idea that the Beach Boys were totally replaced by session players has never taken hold. Only 14 years have passed since the first common misconception was punctured; it's too soon for the opposite misconception to be widely held.

The "we" refers to myself, the band's biographers, Beach Boys archive manager Alan Boyd, and his assistant Craig Slowinski, who is responsible for figuring out who-plays-what-and-where for the liner notes on various reissues. What happens is that Slowinski listens to the tapes, hears someone saying something like "Dennis! You're playing drums too fast!", and that is how we know who is playing drums on that particular track, despite the fact that Hal Blaine might remember differently. It is infinitely more authoritative than the 50-year-old memories of session musicians who can't reasonably be expected to remember if they played on an original recording or merely a cover version.

And you are absolutely wrong about the timeline of these "popular misconceptions". There are many articles and biographies from the 1970s that acknowledge the fact that Wilson began using Spector's musicians on Beach Boys records. They all suggest that the session musicians completely replaced the Beach Boys on their instruments, especially on Pet Sounds, and it wasn't until the release of The Pet Sounds Sessions that the record started getting corrected (that was when the tapes were properly analyzed and it was revealed that the Beach Boys actually did play on some of Pet Sounds after all). The Wrecking Crew documentary and book only muddied things further.

As Brian began experimenting with new sound textures, he found that the instrumental skills of the Beach Boys were inadequate. While the voices were always those of the band, from 1963 through 1966 Brian used studio musicians on those instrumental tracks. —The Beach Boys and the California Myth (p. 72)

45 years have passed since that text was printed. We know now that the claim is true... But highly misleading. Later, in 1997, the story becomes more nuanced:

Starting in 1963, Brian had begun regularly employing them on his outside productions. By early 1964, Brian began calling them in for Beach Boys recording dates, and in 1965, when Brian quit the road to concentrate on record production, the session musicians essentially became the in-studio Beach Boys, playing the backing tracks for most of the band's biggest hits...from "California Girls" through Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations" and "Heroes and Villains." [Carl played 12-string guitar on many sessions.] —Pet Sounds Sessions liner notes

ili (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

And here's Slowinski himself backing me up...

In 1978, David Leaf wrote "from 1963 through 1966 Brian used studio musicians on the instrumental tracks." That one statement has done more to distort reality than just about anything else in Beach Boys land. For, somewhere along the line, this was repeated and repeated and blown up into the extreme myth that, beginning right at the start of 1963, Brian (in his role as producer) only used professional "outside" musicians on all the instrumental tracks, and used the Beach Boys just for vocals. [...] But as any good historian can attest, a myth perpetuated is tough to deflate: "If a lie is told enough times, it will become the truth." Recollections of the participants can't always be relied upon either...many of these pro studio musicians were playing multiple sessions, day-in and day-out, for numerous clients, for years on end. They can hardly be expected to remember the fine details of any given session with crystal-clear accuracy some 30, 40, or 50 years later! In reality, however, once the vaults were opened up and the tapes were studied, the true situation became clear: the Boys themselves played most of the instruments on their records until the Beach Boys Today! album in early 1965. Up to that point, they would occasionally augment their playing with percussion, horns, or an extra bass, and a couple of times Brian cut an entire Beach Boys backing track with outside musicians, but that was the exception, not the rule [...]

(read more)

ili (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Warning: math time! The Beach Boys released 15 albums and 28 singles from 1961 to 1969. The first ten albums and 17 singles were largely self-contained efforts; the band members always played their own instruments, with less than a dozen exceptions to the rule before 1963 (the exceptions are enumerated in the Stebbins source).

From mid-1963 to 1965, the group were occasionally augmented by studio musicians for select tracks. Eight albums and 13 singles were released in this timespan. Only four (or five?) of those singles were dominated by session players ("The Little Girl I Once Knew", "Do You Wanna Dance?", "Help Me, Rhonda", "California Girls", and possibly "Be True to Your School"). The album that relied on studio musicians the most to date, The Beach Boys Today (1965), had the band playing their own instruments on 6 out of 11 tracks (in other words, "more than half").

From 1966 to mid-1967, Wilson was largely producing tracks without his bandmates. Two albums (Pet Sounds and Smiley Smile) and four singles were released in this timespan. (Smile, an album that did heavily feature session musicians, was not released. Smiley Smile was a self-contained effort.)

From late 1967 to 1969, the band released another couple of albums and singles that were largely self-contained.

In total, only one studio album (two if we count Smile) and less than half of the singles were dominated by session players in the 1960s. Every other record featured the Beach Boys playing their own instruments or the Beach Boys playing their own instruments while augmented by studio musicians. ili (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

ILIL, this is a standout example of a violation of WP:No original research, with you taking it upon yourself to decide whether the Wrecking Crew's contribution was major or minor by way of statistics.

Plenty of authors have said that the Beach Boys began to rely on studio musicians more and more after 1963, until the session players "played virtually every instrument" according to Kent Hartman writing in 2012's The Wrecking Crew. Session guitarist and singer Glenn Campbell even graduated from the Wrecking Crew to become a Beach Boy on tour. Ken Sharp's 2016 book Sound Explosion!: Inside L.A.'s Studio Factory with the Wrecking Crew also goes into detail about the session musicians. Brian told Ken Sharp, "I mainly worked in the studio with the Wrecking Crew to achieve what I wanted... They inspired me to reach higher ground and really helped make my music come alive in the studio." Bassist Carol Kaye has been called the "Beach Girl" because her contribution was so influential on Pet Sounds.

It's not really a "misconception" that session musicians were a large part of the sound of the Beach Boys. They certainly contributed to the group's success on many songs. Rather than being a "common misconception", the depth of involvement by session musicians versus the Beach Boys themselves is an ongoing debate. The jury is still out. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Again, you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying whether the contributions were "major or minor". That is an opinion. I'm saying that they did not play all of the instruments on most of the albums and singles. That isn't an opinion, it's a statistical fact. WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources..

My "original research" goes only as far as proving that one source is more credible than another. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Kent Hartman did not listen to the session tapes. He did not consult anyone who did. What he did consult were AFM contracts, which have been proven unreliable, and the people who were there, who have also proven unreliable. He should not be considered an authoritative source.

We have authoritative credits for the band's 1965–69 albums, which can be gleamed from their respective articles, and which indicate that the Wrecking Crew were overwhelmingly featured on Pet Sounds, but not the four '67-69 albums. I cannot provide complete credits for the seven '62-64 albums, but we already know, based on the sources, that Wilson did not use these studio musicians until after mid-1963 and that he did not use them on Beach Boys records until early 1964. That means we can automatically rule out the band's first four albums from '62-63. And so we're left uncertain about three albums (All Summer Long, Shut Down Volume 2, and All Summer Long), which is less than the number of albums that we are certain were not dominated by session players (Christmas, Today!, Party!, Summer Days, Smiley Smile, Friends, Wild Honey, 20/20).}}

In light of these immutable truths, Wikipedia should be able to state definitively that the Wrecking Crew did not replace the Beach Boys on most albums. As for singles, that's another can of worms... ili (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Forget my convoluted analysis, just read straight from the horse's mouth, lest I be accused once more of "original research". ili (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That source is from Craig Slowinski, written in 2006, two years before the big Wrecking Crew documentary, and before a bunch of new sources were published talking up the contributions of session musicians. I don't dispute that Slowinski thinks there was a "myth" started in 1978 by David Leaf, who wrote that the Beach Boys were replaced on instrumental tracks. The problem with Slowinski's assessment is that plenty of authors embrace the Leaf description to at least some degree, and the later descriptions by Wrecking Crew members. It was only Slowinski who was saying in 2006 that there was a myth. Slowinski is an outlier. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm incredulous. An "outlier"?

I've presented the strongest sources possible that prove that The Wrecking Crew book and documentary contains virtually nothing that the world didn't already know about who played on the Beach Boys' records in the '60s, contradicting your assertion from earlier. Hartman himself said,

Though [Brian Wilson] had for several months brought in various session players on a sporadic, potluck basis to supplement things, the other Beach Boys generally played on the earliest songs, too. [p. 59]

Even if there was any damning new non-anecdotal evidence, we do have three sources, two of which were published post-Wrecking Crew documentary (Stebbins, Slate, Pitchfork), that are essentially in agreement with Slowinski's findings. And it's already been demonstrated that there's not really anything in the book and documentary that contradicts Slowinski. It's just a matter of timespan – did Wilson use the Wrecking Crew almost exclusively between early '64 and late '67 (Shut Down Volume 2 through Smiley Smile) or mid-1965 to early 1967 (Pet Sounds through Smile)?

Any serious historian today would take any claims sourced from a Wrecking Crew musician with a grain of salt.

I think, in general, what we really need is a clearer, more empathetic understanding of what it meant to be a session musician back then. We need to have a sense of what this job was like. This was a complicated job, where they were playing in a studio, three or four sessions a day, Monday through Friday. They were probably recording hundreds, if not thousands of songs per year, right? They were busy, and it was complicated. And the music industry treated them solely as hired guns, so they weren’t involved in what happened to a recording after they left the studio. —Brian F. Wright, historian at the University of Texas who published an article about Carol Kaye's controversial claims for the Cambridge University Press in 2019

[12] [13]

You're now reduced to arguing that Wikipedia can't note something as a "common misconception" if it's been supported by "plenty of authors". In other words, "no 'common misconceptions' until the misconception stops being 'common'" – are you even aware that the List of common misconceptions only includes misconceptions that are considered "current"?

WP:OLDSOURCES: Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light [...] Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. [...] newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.

I'm going to add more sources in this article that support the fact that the Boys played most of their own tracks pre-'64 and post-'66. If you revert it again, I'll have to reboot this RfC, further wasting everyone's time, as it would be unfair to expect other editors to read all this back-and-forth in order to get the real facts. ili (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So is this the hill you have decided to defend to death? The list of common misconceptions? It doesn't seem that important to me.

I have no problem with telling the reader the known extent of session musician contributions to Beach Boys songs, with a healthy dose of uncertainty because of contradictory sources, but to say that there is a current common misconception is going too far. Is there confusion out there? Sure. But not a common misconception. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a handful of reliable sources that refer to this topic as part of a common misconception. Do you have any reliable sources that state it isn't a common misconception? No? Cool. Thanks for playing. ili (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(summoned via RfC bot)

No, per Binksternet and Mr swordfish. To add to their points:

• While Stebbins' book may be factually reliable, it's also worth keeping in mind that it appears to be written from a highly emotional fan perspective - witness this passage (which introduces the assessment that ILIL quoted in their "Yes" vote above):

The Beach Boys' vocal sound at its best is nothing short of pure pop bliss. If aliens ever land on Earth and we need to impress them quickly, just shoot a little "Our Prayer" their way and they'll immediately understand everything worthwhile about the human race. Brian found the good or the God within us all, the indescribable spiritual chord that connects us. But he wasn't alone in his discovery. He created the genius body of work along with his brothers, his cousin and his friends. ..."

(Btw, I just listened to that song and can't quite see what's so special about it in the Beach Boys' oeuvre. I suspect that Stebbins' book contains other judgments and assessments that are likewise highly subjective.)

• The misconception is also discussed on Pitchfork ... - it seems that this refers to the following passage in the Pitchfork article, which is about a much narrower claim:

  ... drummer Dennis fell victim to the common misconception that session player Hal Blaine manned the skins exclusively in the studio at Brian's behest. In actuality, Dennis made sporadic but dramatic contributions during even Brian's creative peak, ...

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB: I'd like to withdraw this RfC but I'm not sure how to do it. I concede that this issue is, unexpectedly, way too nerdy and nuanced for most people to understand.

In terms of getting the facts straight, this RfC has been an utter failure. The only contradicting source given by Mr Swordfish and Binksinternet was The Wrecking Crew book, which has many of its own factual errors, such as listing an incorrect release date for Pet Sounds. In turn, I've sourced biographers and journalists who support the findings made by one of the few individuals in history who have analyzed the Beach Boys' session tapes, Craig Slowinski.

It's common for music biographies to contain opinions and critiques in addition to the hard facts. Stebbins' superlatives have nothing to do with his coverage of the technicalities involved with the band's recording sessions, a topic that he clearly handled in an objective manner. Alas, I give up. ili (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the bot was supposed to close the Rfc once the template was removed. But it didn't do that. I'll look into closing it manually. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline

Hi all,

I have noticed that there have been some fairly recent updates to the timeline, some of which I feel are misleading. Brian is given thinner lines for periods of time he wasn’t on the road, including post-February 1998 (except 2012). The same is true for Carl when he was off the road from mid-1997 until his death from cancer in February 1998. Likewise, Al is marked similarly for post-February (or May, when his last pre-2012 “full band” show was; I’ll have to double-check) 1998.

I understand the reasons for marking Brian and Al like this from 1998-2011 and 2013-present, because of BRI. However, I think that marking Brian (and even Carl) like this before 1998 is mostly misleading. I’d like to propose that we only give Brian these thinner bars from mid-1990 through 1994 and 1997-2011, since he was contributing in the studio (to different extents depending on time) from December 1964 to 1976, late 1982-1989, and 1995-1996. Only from 1991-1994 and 1997 onwards (other than 2011-2012) does Brian contribute very little, if at all.

I also think we should consider adding a bar for David Marks in mid-2018 for the SiriusXM interview/reunion. (I’d also propose his time touring with Brian in 2013 and occasional guest appearances with Mike in 2014 and 2015, but I doubt that’s go over well.) I also think thicker lines for Brian, Mike, Al, and Bruce (and David if we give him any bar here) should be considered for the mid-2018 SiriusXM interview/reunion.

Thanks!!

EPBeatles January 15, 2023, 5:13 PM EST EPBeatles (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

California sound section: Manson

It says: "Drawing from the Beach Boys' associations with Charles Manson …" But wasn’t it Dennis Wilson alone who had that association? Boscaswell talk 20:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, in the Dennis Wilson article, it says: "Manson recorded numerous songs at Brian's home studio,[53] although the recordings remain unheard by the public.[55] Band engineer Stephen Desper said that the Manson sessions were done "for Dennis [Wilson] and Terry Melcher".[56] In September 1968, Wilson recorded a Manson song for the Beach Boys, originally titled "Cease to Exist" but reworked as "Never Learn Not to Love", as a single B-side released the following December."

But does that necessarily mean that there was "an association"? Boscaswell talk 21:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)